If I understand correctly GR had David Gerrold write TNG's "bible" or Writer's Guide (who obviously consulted with GR), but I don't know if it was rewritten later Gerrold left the show.
How much of early TNG was GR's?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
What I've read is that Roddenberry and Gerrold both did drafts of the bible, with input from the other two developers, D.C. Fontana and Bob Justman. I think Gerrold's was the final version, but it had contributions from all four.
No doubt there was a revised version put out after Gerrold and the others left. It's normal for series bibles to get revised as shows evolve. And the original TNG bible had a lot of things that differed from the final show. Worf wasn't even in it. It said that Data's name was pronounced "that-a" and that he was created by mysterious aliens; "Bill" Riker was prejudiced against androids; Geordi was the liaison with the ship's children; and that sort of thing. They would've had to revise it so that incoming writers would be up on the changes.
No doubt there was a revised version put out after Gerrold and the others left. It's normal for series bibles to get revised as shows evolve. And the original TNG bible had a lot of things that differed from the final show. Worf wasn't even in it. It said that Data's name was pronounced "that-a" and that he was created by mysterious aliens; "Bill" Riker was prejudiced against androids; Geordi was the liaison with the ship's children; and that sort of thing. They would've had to revise it so that incoming writers would be up on the changes.
That could be one of the early forms. There's no Worf in this version.
One thing I spotted was wrong was GR promoting the idea that TNG would be an ensemble show like TOS. Uh, TOS was never really an ensemble show. It could have been, but they chose to not really explore that which isn't surprising because that wasn't the nature of television back then.
Some of the notions about what would not be accepted in scripts went out the window given we did see warfare like stories with Romulans and Klingons and such.
And I don't recall seeing anything in there about conflict not being allowed between the main characters.
Worf: "I am NOT a Merry Man!!!"
It was never written down in the bible, no, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist as a policy. Especially if it came mainly from Maizlish, who had no hand in the bible as far as I know.
Conflict between main characters in TNG would mean conflict in the chain of command and how well does a ship work with first officer on captains throat?
In DS9 it's understandable, Sisko was working with people who had no starfleet academy background, but argument on the bridge of Enterprise-D, flagship of the federation? That would be ridiculous. If a writer can't write a good story without everybody arguing, that's not a very good writer.
Besides, there is enough friction in everyday life, no need to watch it from TV.
In DS9 it's understandable, Sisko was working with people who had no starfleet academy background, but argument on the bridge of Enterprise-D, flagship of the federation? That would be ridiculous. If a writer can't write a good story without everybody arguing, that's not a very good writer.
Besides, there is enough friction in everyday life, no need to watch it from TV.
We're not talking about mutiny for crissakes. We're talking about some of the drama we got from disagreeing viewpoints such as seen on TOS or any number of other SF shows.
Exactly. It's a first officer's job to offer a check on the captain's judgment. Look at Spock arguing against Kirk's militant attitude in "Arena" and "Devil in the Dark." Look at McCoy riding Kirk about Bailey in "The Corbomite Maneuver." Look at Spock and McCoy in any given episode. TOS was full of conflict within the crew.
I think we got a believable amount of it in TNG. And it was handled by the characters in a mature and professional way. I can recall many situations in TNG where there was a difference of opinion. And like in the chain of command, you either suck it up, or you articulate your point with eloquence and a cool head. The way internal conflict is handled in contemporary TV is absurd. It's as if all of our protagonists are bipolar. If you think subordinates in professional or military settings are having bitch fits at each other every week you're sadly mistaken.
I have to agree. If you can't write a compelling story without everyone arguing all the time, you're not a very good writer.
I have to agree. If you can't write a compelling story without everyone arguing all the time, you're not a very good writer.
^True. I've heard some TNG writers say that the rule against petty conflicts (as applied by Berman later on rather than Maizlish in season 1) actually helped them as writers, because it challenged them to avoid the lazy fallbacks of just having characters be jerks or neurotics or have stupid misunderstandings, and to come up with more original and meaningful reasons for characters to come into conflict.
I wouldn't say the writers found innovative ways around the "no conflict" dictum.
Most of the conflicts in TNG come from an external force, problem or adversary.
The real writing problem with the characters in TNG is that most of them lack a strong worldview, unlike with Spock, Kirk and McCoy. The characters also don't have strong wants or desires, despite some lip service regarding Riker's want to be a captain.
Picard and Worf are the only ones who have particularly strong worldviews. The latter has a stronger one, which provides some of the better conflicts in the series. "The Enemy" comes to mind where Worf refuses to give blood to the injured Romulan. Whereas Picard is always morally right in his worldview, which just makes him right and everybody else wrong.
The characters often end up as jerks and neurotics anyway, usually under an alien influence, delusion or whenever someone new comes aboard. Riker and Geordi are jerks when Ro Laren, Tam Elbrum, Lt. Commander Shelby and Captain Jellico come aboard. They act very unprofessional and petty in those instances.
Last edited:
That to me is 100x more compelling than manufactured internal melodrama. It's also more difficult to write than "Riker throws a temper tantrum because he disagrees with Picard."
No show is perfect. In episodic/serialized television, you're going to get some flops and fillers when you have to produce 24 episodes a year(or whatever the number was). But TNG in its approach was preferable for me over the other Trek series(not that I don't enjoy them all), and certainly more preferable than contemporary network TV's approach.
I personally don't see Picard written as always right. It's a fine line, but I see Picard written on the foundation of existentialist themes, and to an extent, the entire show was as well more so than the other Trek spin offs. Whoever was really influencing that writing room read a lot of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Rand. If anyone employs moral absolutes in Trek it's Janeway.
Last edited:
Barclay's raison d'être was to provide resolvable conflict with the crew by way of his neuroses.
Well we did get differing viewpoints, even with some passion, as early as Picard and Crusher in "Symbiosis" even if the characters and show did tend to ultimately defer to the captain and the status quo being right.
Picard and Crusher came to moral and ethical blows several times through the series. "Symbiosis" for one, but also "True Q" and "The Perfect Mate" come to mind as well. Likewise, Crusher faced off with Worf in "The Enemy", and Riker and Worf did as well in "Ethics" re: Worf's desire to commit ritual suicide. Data even basically violates the Prime Directive (even if he skates by on a technicality) in "Pen Pals" because he can't let Sarjenka and her family die. He further forces the crew to aid him when he effectively broadcasts Sarjenka's pleas for help for all to hear on the bridge.
Though, there are just as many stories where they didn't. Troi didn't seem to have any problem sleeping with Devonani Ral or John Aaron despite there being conflicts of interest with the mission of the Enterprise in those episodes and the objectives of those characters; Riker makes a big stink in "The Outcast" after falling in love with Soren, despite being advised very clearly to not let himself get attached.
When it suited the show, the characters did take moral stands. I don't agree that it was only Picard and Worf who had strongly held opinions or beliefs. Its just that they were the two who the writers went to the most often for those characteristic story points.
Though, there are just as many stories where they didn't. Troi didn't seem to have any problem sleeping with Devonani Ral or John Aaron despite there being conflicts of interest with the mission of the Enterprise in those episodes and the objectives of those characters; Riker makes a big stink in "The Outcast" after falling in love with Soren, despite being advised very clearly to not let himself get attached.
When it suited the show, the characters did take moral stands. I don't agree that it was only Picard and Worf who had strongly held opinions or beliefs. Its just that they were the two who the writers went to the most often for those characteristic story points.
No one was professing the latter.
Not every show has a show bible, some just have sketchy writer's guidelines. However, one way to establish authorship, and that all-important "Created by" credit, is to write the pilot AND the show bible. Part of me suspects that Roddenberry massively rewrote Farpoint and pushed Gerrold out in order to put his stamp on both pilot and bible to make certain that he didn't have to share the "Created by", and all the money that goes with that, with others.
Last edited:
Although he should've had to share it anyway. Per WGA rules (which I looked up the last time this came up), there are two main ways to get creator credit: To write the series bible or to be the credited writer of the pilot script. Gerrold co-wrote the bible and D.C. Fontana is credited as the co-writer of the pilot, so one or both of them were entitled to creator credit alongside Roddenberry. The fact that they got denied it is highly irregular. I read that the WGA's reason for giving him sole creator credit is that TNG was derived from the original Star Trek, but that doesn't fit the pattern of other spinoffs like the later Trek shows, The Bionic Woman, Angel, Stargate Atlantis, and the like, which all give creator credit to their own developers rather than just the parent shows' creators. Roddenberry was certainly entitled to creator credit for TNG, but he should've shared it with Gerrold and/or Fontana.
Similar threads
