Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

[The Wormhole]

Perhaps the writers were not visionaries at all. But agree or disagree, Roddenberry was,

No. Gene Roddenberry was a man with an idea. A good idea which led to a good TV series that has spawned a sci-fi franchise that we all love and care about. But all Roddenberry did was think it up. The other writers he had working for him did the rest, developed the idea into the final product we saw on TV. Hell, half the things that have made Star Trek popular over the years Roddenberry wasn't even directly involved with.

Gene Roddenberry was many things, some were even positive, but he was no visionary.

 

[M'Sharak]

The Prime universe doesn't have more significance; it's simply more familiar to us, the audience, by virtue of having had more stories set in that universe than in any of the others. It's the best-known and most frequently-traveled of all the alternate universes which together comprise Star Trek.

None of those universes are explicitly the same one in which we live, but neither are any of them so drastically different that they couldn't be. All of them arise from a human act of asking "What if... ?" Whatever can be imagined, there's a universe which can contain it.

In a way to answer Dennis's point, I understand this attitude, but disagree. The basis of my feelings on this is that TOS and its Prime derivatives ARE in our universe and all others are alternate. That's what alternate means: not ours. To say ALL representations of the story of Star Trek are alternates leaves the show without relevance here. I'd wager the creators and writers never thought otherwise and that when they wrote "Mirror, Mirror" they were thinking that it was set in a universe other than our Prime.

Let's take a different tack: What do you think is the assumption of the majority of all people who know of Star Trek? Our possible future, or someone else's?

Inasmuch as I'm able to get inside the collective heads of all people who know of Star Trek, I don't believe that it occurs to most of them even to consider the question of whose possible future it might or might not represent.

And do they think of Star Trek as any more or less real or possible than the Marvel universe since they are both fiction?

I just don't think most people are that analytical about the entertainment they choose to watch. If it's executed well and the story and characters engage them while they're watching, then it's "real" enough for the purpose. I don't imagine it occurs to most that they could or should compare Trek and Marvel against a yardstick of which is more real; for all I know, they might consider both equally far-fetched.

 

[Greg Cox]

..fretting about which future history involving Vulcans and tribbles takes place in our actual future seems a bit pointless.

Conversely, trying to convince me otherwise is the same waste of time. Yet here we all are, discussing our respective pointless points of view about meaningless fictions.

Oh, just to clarify: I never said that fictions are "meaningless." I suggested that the distinction you're drawing between these two particular fictions is meaningless.

Not the same thing.

The meaning of a work of fiction is not determined by how "real" it is or whether it takes place in "our" universe.

Star Trek is not real. Marvel Comics are not real. The Lord of the Rings is not real. But we can still be moved and inspired by how they portray the human condition and by the artistry and imagination of the work.

 

[plynch]

But all Roddenberry did was think it up.

That's kind of a lot, really.

And rewrite most of the scripts in S1, establishing the "lofty" wordsy tone we associate with Star Trek.

And produce/exec. produce the series.

And write/produce the first movie that did well enough to inspire Paramount to make more.

And cocreate the first spinoff series.

That's all.

 

[Horizons96]

In the Star Trek Universe, we ourselves are in an alternate universe they have never discovered.

I was thinking this the other night, not to be overly serious, but simply as food for thought, remember Sisko's constant visions where he'd be a writer in 1940s New York, committed to a mental asylum and obsessively scrawling the script to DS9 on the wall, and what he'd write would become instant reality in the Trek universe?? Maybe WE are in some weird alternate reality where all the Trek characters are normal 20th century citizens in some strange fictional acting role and the writers, designers, producers and Roddenberry are channeling and manifesting the Prime Universe on TV screens. Imagine if Jadzia had a vision of being a 20th century Earth actor that jumped ship to a second-rate show and that's the reason she would lose her life in Prime?

 

[Ovation]

..fretting about which future history involving Vulcans and tribbles takes place in our actual future seems a bit pointless.

Conversely, trying to convince me otherwise is the same waste of time. Yet here we all are, discussing our respective pointless points of view about meaningless fictions.

It's New Year's Day and I'm taking the day off. Gotta pass the time somehow!

I suppose I could go see "Into the Woods," but since that's not set in the same universe as the original Grimm's Fairy Tales, maybe I shouldn't bother?

The reason you shouldn't bother is because it's a waste of time (you can't get those two and a half hours of your life back--I know, I've already lost them). Went with a big group of people and, to be fair, some of them liked it quite a bit, but I cannot in good conscience recommend going (only about 20 mins. were entertaining to me--if I'd been alone I'd have walked out early and that's something I've only done once in 4000+ trips to the cinema).

 

[Greg Cox]

Conversely, trying to convince me otherwise is the same waste of time. Yet here we all are, discussing our respective pointless points of view about meaningless fictions.

It's New Year's Day and I'm taking the day off. Gotta pass the time somehow!

I suppose I could go see "Into the Woods," but since that's not set in the same universe as the original Grimm's Fairy Tales, maybe I shouldn't bother?

The reason you shouldn't bother is because it's a waste of time (you can't get those two and a half hours of your life back--I know, I've already lost them). Went with a big group of people and, to be fair, some of them liked it quite a bit, but I cannot in good conscience recommend going (only about 20 mins. were entertaining to me--if I'd been alone I'd have walked out early and that's something I've only done once in 4000+ trips to the cinema).

Thanks for the warning, but I'm a big Sondheim fan so it's pretty much mandatory. Plus, I've heard good things from friends who are also into Broadway musicals.

 

[Mudd]

In the Star Trek Universe, we ourselves are in an alternate universe they have never discovered.

In the pre-Crisis DC Comics continuity we would be "Earth Prime," the version of Earth where characters like Superman and Batman are fictional creations.

Until, during the Crisis On Infinite Earths, Superboy is introduced into our world as a real person.

Then, our Universe ends.

We should be careful what we wish for.

 

[The Doctor]

When I was in grade school, the idea that Star Trek existed in our future was an incredibly powerful notion. I was obsessed with the idea and saddened that there was no conceivable way I'd live long enough to 'see it.' It was a big part of why TNG grabbed me so hard. As with many childhood fantasies, it didn't last.

Still, I can see the allure.

 

[Ovation]

It's New Year's Day and I'm taking the day off. Gotta pass the time somehow!

I suppose I could go see "Into the Woods," but since that's not set in the same universe as the original Grimm's Fairy Tales, maybe I shouldn't bother?

The reason you shouldn't bother is because it's a waste of time (you can't get those two and a half hours of your life back--I know, I've already lost them). Went with a big group of people and, to be fair, some of them liked it quite a bit, but I cannot in good conscience recommend going (only about 20 mins. were entertaining to me--if I'd been alone I'd have walked out early and that's something I've only done once in 4000+ trips to the cinema).

Thanks for the warning, but I'm a big Sondheim fan so it's pretty much mandatory. Plus, I've heard good things from friends who are also into Broadway musicals.

Ah well. Enjoy then.

 

[Greg Cox]

When I was in grade school, the idea that Star Trek existed in our future was an incredibly powerful notion. I was obsessed with the idea and saddened that there was no conceivable way I'd live long enough to 'see it.' It was a big part of why TNG grabbed me so hard. As with many childhood fantasies, it didn't last.

Still, I can see the allure.

On the other hand, it was kinda nice to know that Planet of the Apes or Soylent Green or Logan's Run were not necessarily "our" future . . .

Does the new Star Trek/Planet of the Apes crossover comic take place in "our" future? Now there's question to keep you up nights!

 

[Set Harth]

The reason you shouldn't bother is because it's a waste of time (you can't get those two and a half hours of your life back--I know, I've already lost them). Went with a big group of people and, to be fair, some of them liked it quite a bit, but I cannot in good conscience recommend going (only about 20 mins. were entertaining to me--if I'd been alone I'd have walked out early and that's something I've only done once in 4000+ trips to the cinema).

I'm curious - what movie did you walk out of?

For me it was Black Sheep.

 

[Smellmet]

I've still to this day never walked out of movie at the cinema. The closest I've come is Face/Off. God that was one dumb movie.

 

[The Wormhole]

But all Roddenberry did was think it up.

That's kind of a lot, really.

And rewrite most of the scripts in S1, establishing the "lofty" wordsy tone we associate with Star Trek.

And produce/exec. produce the series.

And write/produce the first movie that did well enough to inspire Paramount to make more.

And cocreate the first spinoff series.

That's all.

Doing that stuff does not make him a visionary. However, I'm going to argue this point:

And write/produce the first movie that did well enough to inspire Paramount to make more.

Paramount removed Roddenberry from any authority before green lighting any more movies. And the one Roddenberry tried arguing against making turned out to be the most popular one, that every movie for nearly the past two decades has tried to rip-off in some way.

 

[Franklin]

But all Roddenberry did was think it up.

That's kind of a lot, really.

And rewrite most of the scripts in S1, establishing the "lofty" wordsy tone we associate with Star Trek.

And produce/exec. produce the series.

And write/produce the first movie that did well enough to inspire Paramount to make more.

And cocreate the first spinoff series.

That's all.

Being creative, and Roddenberry could be that, is different than being a visionary or promoting some kind of consistent message.

For what it's worth, I see Roddenberry officially credited in some way for five stories in the first year TOS episodes: "Charlie X", "Mudd's Women", parts I and II of "The Menagerie", and "The Return of the Archons". By way of comparison, Gene L. Coon was officially credited in some way in the stories "Arena", "Space Seed", "A Taste of Armageddon", "Devil in the Dark", and "Errand of Mercy" in season one. Five each.

As far as being producer goes, as I said above, Gene L. Coon was probably as responsible for the look and feel of the series as Roddenberry was. The only reason why he doesn't get his due as he should is that he tragically died early (1973). When TOS was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Dramatic Series in 1967, he and Roddenberry were each mentioned as the series producers.

Gene Coon's significance should never be forgotten. Even Fred Freiberger is looked at in a more positive light than he's bathed in by some who blame him for any drop in quality in season three. In fact, some even blame Roddenberry for the show's problems in season three, saying he deserted TOS.

At least in the official credits, Roddenberry is not mentioned as a writer in TMP. He may have had a general uncredited influence on the story, but Alan Dean Foster gets sole credit for the story, and Harold Livingston gets sole credit for the screenplay.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've still to this day never walked out of movie at the cinema. The closest I've come is Face/Off. God that was one dumb movie.

I walked out of Flowers in the Attic.(1987) and I got in for free!

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I didn't walk out of "Resident Evil: Afterlife," but I did walk out of the midnight showing (once the credits rolled) angry that I had to pay to watch something so horrid.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I've never walked out on a movie. I'd never permit myself to buy ticket for something I'd suspect might warrant it. This from someone who saw Spice Girls in theatres.

 

[Ovation]

The reason you shouldn't bother is because it's a waste of time (you can't get those two and a half hours of your life back--I know, I've already lost them). Went with a big group of people and, to be fair, some of them liked it quite a bit, but I cannot in good conscience recommend going (only about 20 mins. were entertaining to me--if I'd been alone I'd have walked out early and that's something I've only done once in 4000+ trips to the cinema).

I'm curious - what movie did you walk out of?

For me it was Black Sheep.

The Blair Witch Project.

I've never walked out on a movie. I'd never permit myself to buy ticket for something I'd suspect might warrant it. This from someone who saw Spice Girls in theatres.

It was a group activity involving family friends with children ( theirs and ours). There was no getting out of it.

 

[doubleohfive]

I've never walked out on a movie. I'd never permit myself to buy ticket for something I'd suspect might warrant it. This from someone who saw Spice Girls in theatres.

Nor I. Relatedly, the best part of Transformers: Age of Extinction was the nap I took in the middle of it.