Gene Roddenberry takes credit for everything.

[Maurice]

One note on that article: of TNG it states "When all four major networks balked at the chance to pick up the series". In point of fact, Fox only had two nights of programming by the time TNG premiered, so it was hardly a "major network". A minor nit, but a nit nevertheless.

 

[Amaris]

One note on that article: of TNG it states "When all four major networks balked at the chance to pick up the series". In point of fact, Fox only had two mights of programming by the time TNG premiered, so it was hardly a "major network". A minor nit, but a nit nevertheless.

Well, I'm not going to lie... *runs out of the room*

 

[Lance]

The clearest one was 'The Naked Now', which under Dorothy Fontana's original draft version was a deep psychological thriller delving into the deeper recesses of the new characters backstories, but which under Roddenberry's Rewrite became nothing but a cheesy eighties sex comedy in space.

Fontana had her name removed in protest.

Another one was 'Justice', which under John Black was a fascinating exploration of the lengths to which a society would go to sacrifice liberty in exchange for peace, but which under Roddenberry was rewritten as a cheesy eighties sex comedy in space. With a God-creature in it.

John Black had his name removed in protest.

Oh my.... any indication that Haven was originally good, Lance?

There's value in doing a full thread for this book one day, I think, but just flicking through it, here's some of what it had to say about 'Haven':

The original version of the story, entitled 'Love Beyond Time And Space', provided many of the same story beats, but truly was unusable, as the characters had no consistency at all, and there were too many holes in the story. Writer Tracy Torme managed to breathe new life into the story, and made it work the way that it does.

It seems we dodged a bullet, 'Haven' could have been even worse.

As the season goes on there's less difference between early conception and final resolution of each story, presumably because Maurice Hurley had taken the reigns and Roddenberry himself was already taking a back seat. The stories which are truly different in their original conceptions are 'The Naked Now', 'Justice', 'Hide & Q', 'Where No One Has Gone Before', 'The Battle' and 'Datalore' (the latter of which didn't even have Lore in it, but instead a female Soong android, not to be played by Brent Spiner obviously ). Some of these stories only differ in their details, usually the early drafts have less of the goofy stuff in them, but some of them are radically different (John Black's version of 'Justice' arguably comes across just a little bit too much like a retread of the TOS episode 'Return of the Archons', but it does win props for having a downbeat ending).


Like I said, one of these days I might start a thread quoting the early draft synopsies. It's a fascinating book.

 

[BillJ]

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek, which I thank him for. It ignited a life-long love of science fiction. But the man was a major douche.

 

[Lance]

Some of history's greatest men were douches.

I've got a lot of respect for Roddenberry for being the lightning rod, but it's the voltage that he attracted which really provided the life-blood for Star Trek. Roddenberry set out the original ground rules, but it took many others to realise the vision. That holds true arguably right up to the present day.

 

[PCz911]

Not having worked in "Hollywood".... Is gene's behavior so unusual? Yes, based on everything I've read in this thread he was an arse, but I suspect quite a lot of Hollywood types are of the same ilk.

 

[T'Girl]

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek ...

With a lot of help, it was as much Gene Coon's creation as it was Roddenberry's.

.
.

 

[BillJ]

Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek ...

With a lot of help, it was as much Gene Coon's creation as it was Roddenberry's.

.
.

Gene Coon deserves a ton of credit for Star Trek's success (same goes for Dorothy Fontana and Bob Justman). There's no doubt about it. But much of the groundwork was laid prior to him joining the show midway through season one.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You're right. I didn't understand.

See, in the newspaper business, we'd put our names on top when we were the last person to work on it.

So whoever re-wrote the re-write would have his/her name on top.

Ah, interesting. I didn't know that about the newspaper business.

Jonny, you're the man. Thanks for answering my question.

And now I feel bad about the smartass link I posted above.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I just recalled something else that's tangentially related to this discussion: Whether or not stories would be better for GR's input. I remember when I first read the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, I was surprised by the number of episodes that sounded more interesting in their original form.

For instance, in "Elementary, My Dear Data," some people have harped on the fact that Geordi is able to take Moriarty's drawing of the Enterprise out of the Holodeck. In the original script, this was actually a plot point, as it made Picard & co. realize that it was potentially possible for holodeck-created beings to leave the holodeck. So Picard lied to Moriarty & led him to believe that it wasn't possible to get Moriarty to release the ship. When Pulaski questions Picard on this, he says something like, "Until we know more about this being based on one of literature's greatest villains, we had better be very careful."

Roddenberry nixed that ending, as he didn't think that the captain should be lying to the villain. Personally, I think that the described ending sounds much stronger than what we got (not to mention more in keeping with the Moriarty we hear about in Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories).

So not an example of Roddenberry stealing credit, but definitely an example of (IMO) GR making a story worse & less dramatic for his input (if more in keeping with his philosophies about how great 24th Century man was).

There were other stories like that in the book, as I recall, but that's the one that sticks with me. Enrique, if you want to hear more stories like this, I'd definitely recommend the TNG Companion as well as old issues of Cinefantastique.

 

[Maurice]

I think it overstates the case that Coon was as important as Roddenberry. Gene R. created the show and all the main characters. Coon wrote and rewrote some fine scripts, added Klingons and other things, and even finalized some details which were fuzzy prior to that, but, as I've said elsewhere, I've read a fair number of the actual production memos from the show and ideas and suggestions came from all over, including Justman, Fontana, Roddenberry and Coon, so even when Coon is credited as the writer or producer it doesn't necessarily follow that every idea (e.g. "Starfleet" as opposed to UESPA) is actually Coon's doing. I'm not denying Coon was a major part of the show, but it's difficult to say with certainty how much he really contributed.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Creators are not necessarily the best guides for their own creations. Star Trek, Star Wars and James Bond are three examples of series that were/have been actually hindered and held back by the meddling and possessiveness of their creators. Gene, George and Ian may have had original brilliant ideas but, for an entire series to grow and be successful, many voices must be listened to.

 

[Orphalesion]

The original version of the story, entitled 'Love Beyond Time And Space', provided many of the same story beats, but truly was unusable, as the characters had no consistency at all, and there were too many holes in the story. Writer Tracy Torme managed to breathe new life into the story, and made it work the way that it does.

It seems we dodged a bullet, 'Haven' could have been even worse.

Wait...the original story had even more potholes? What we saw was already Swiss cheese!

1) A human family following Betazoid customs....while also taking offense to Betazoid customs.
2) Everybody (the Enterprise, Lwaxana, the Millers, the Tarellians) all just happen to show up at Haven at the same time.
3) How exactly Arianna communicated with Wyatt
4) Tasha's hair....

How many more potholes can there be?

Like I said, one of these days I might start a thread quoting the early draft synopsies. It's a fascinating book.

You totally should! It would be a really interesting "What If...." scenario!

 

[Relayer1]

GR created, arguably, the best sci-fi television show of his day. What he did to it-- and to the others who created it-- is not his shining moment in history.

Roddenberry set out the original ground rules, but it took many others to realise the vision. That holds true arguably right up to the present day.

Creators are not necessarily the best guides for their own creations.

I'd certainly contest that Trek got substantially better when Gene was sidelined early in TNG.

 

[EnriqueH]

Enrique, for your reading pleasure: http://www.academia.edu/2967654/Sta...re_The_Creation_of_an_Early_Television_Auteur

You'll find almost everything stated about Gene in this thread will be in that document. I'm not sure how you felt toward unauthorized biographies and such, so here's an academic paper for your perusal.

Thanks.

I started reading it.

It cites Engel's book, which I don't think should be read without reading David Alexander's book for balance.

One focuses on the positives, the other on the negatives.

I found Solow and Justman's book to be more balanced.

Still, anyone interested in Star Trek's history like I am, should read all three of those books.

 

[Amaris]

Enrique, for your reading pleasure: http://www.academia.edu/2967654/Sta...re_The_Creation_of_an_Early_Television_Auteur

You'll find almost everything stated about Gene in this thread will be in that document. I'm not sure how you felt toward unauthorized biographies and such, so here's an academic paper for your perusal.

Thanks.

I started reading it.

It cites Engel's book, which I don't think should be read without reading David Alexander's book for balance.

One focuses on the positives, the other on the negatives.

I found Solow and Justman's book to be more balanced.

Still, anyone interested in Star Trek's history like I am, should read all three of those books.

It's an interesting read, and while I've read Solow and Justman's book, I haven't read David Alexander. Still, I just wanted you to know that a lot of us weren't just pulling it out of nowhere, we had read these things. Believe me, I admire Gene Roddenberry, it's not like I, or most others, just want to tear him down.

 

[Harvey]

One note on that article: of TNG it states "When all four major networks balked at the chance to pick up the series". In point of fact, Fox only had two nights of programming by the time TNG premiered, so it was hardly a "major network". A minor nit, but a nit nevertheless.

Who writes this crap?

 

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, it wasn't so much that I thought people were hating on Gene for the hell of it.

I just wanted to know where they were getting their info.

 

[Maurice]

One note on that article: of TNG it states "When all four major networks balked at the chance to pick up the series". In point of fact, Fox only had two nights of programming by the time TNG premiered, so it was hardly a "major network". A minor nit, but a nit nevertheless.

Who writes this crap?

Oh, some guy I suspect.

 

[Harvey]

I started reading it.

It cites Engel's book, which I don't think should be read without reading David Alexander's book for balance.

One focuses on the positives, the other on the negatives.

I found Solow and Justman's book to be more balanced.

Still, anyone interested in Star Trek's history like I am, should read all three of those books.

I haven't read that article in full since I submitted it, but I believe I cited all three of the books you mention. In truth, although I find Engel's biography to be much better written than Alexander's, Engel's prose is sometimes nasty in ways that don't do him any favors, and his book is too short to be authoritative. Unfortunately, a definitive biography of Roddenberry has yet to be written.

In response to your initial question, I would suggest two answers. First, Roddenberry snubbing Bob Justman, D.C. Fontana, and David Gerrold when it came to the "created by" credit for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Fontana co-wrote the first episode. Gerrold wrote the series bible. Justman contributed many important ideas, most notably the character of Worf. Only Roddenberry gets credit.

Second, there's the matter of the credit for the original series theme music. Courage wrote and recorded the theme in January 1965. Roddenberry's lyrics were not written until December of 1966, which (contractually) gave him credit with Courage as the co-writer to the theme music and (more importantly) half the royalties. Courage never should have signed the contract letting Roddenebrry do that, but if you think Roddenberry's behavior in that case couldn't be described as stealing credit from Courage, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.