Is Eugene Roddenberry a proponent of the "no conflict among good guys" philosophy?

[Navaros]

Is Eugene Roddenberry a proponent of the "no conflict among good guys" philosophy?

The reason I ask is because I've read that Eugene Roddenberry is an Executive Producer of the new Trek.

Does that mean that the new Trek might be plagued as a result of Eugene carrying over that drama/storytelling-killing philosophy from Berman-era Trek into the new Trek?

Has Eugene made his position on that philosophy known?

Supplementary question #1: Why are they hiring Eugene, exactly?

In my opinion, Trek is good in spite of Gene Roddenberry, not because of him...and many of the Trek elements that Gene contributed himself make Trek worse off, not better. I think that doesn't bode well for giving his son a creative role in designing a Trek show.

Supplementary question #2: Is Eugene likely to cause similar problems by adding elements that make the new Trek show worse off instead of better?

 

[Takeru]

Supplementary question #1: Why are they hiring Eugene, exactly?

For his name. I doubt he will have any real involvement in the production of the show.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Some people are given executive producer credits as a sinecure or for work outside of the actual production. I wouldn't be surprised if Rod Roddenberry ends up doing lots of interviews about the show.

 

[Paradise City]

The new series won't be anyone's leisurely philosophical project, it'll be a fast paced attempt to maximise audience share.

Some sort of "no-conflict-among-the-crew" restriction won't even appear on the radar-- let alone be entertained.

 

[rahullak]

The best shows including Trek have thrive d on conflicts among the good guys. That isn't gonna change because of Rod Roddenberry.

 

[Tim Walker]

GR is no longer around to push the no-conflict-between-good-guys theme. That was incredibly boring, and gave TNG a stuffy, stultifying air.

 

[Greg Cox]

My take? We need more "Damnit, Jim! Are you out of your mind?" and fewer well-run conference room meetings.

 

[Navaros]

GR is no longer around to push the no-conflict-between-good-guys theme. That was incredibly boring, and gave TNG a stuffy, stultifying air.

Agreed. But I wonder if perhaps Gene's son will take up that torch from Berman, who forced that philosophy into most of his shows based on the excuse, "This is what Gene wanted."

If Executive Producer Eugene agrees with that idea, then the new Trek might be hamstrung in the same way.

Hopefully Trek fans will start to grill the new Trek makers with questions about things like this once they start making themselves available to answer questions.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Agreed. But I wonder if perhaps Gene's son will take up that torch from Berman, who forced that philosophy into most of his shows based on the excuse, "This is what Gene wanted."

Berman probably pushed Gene's ideas harder than Gene would have.

 

[Starbreaker]

This show is being run by Bryan Fuller, who will not tolerate stale relationships. Just go watch Hannibal. Rod Robbenberry does not have any kind of creative control.

 

[Christopher]

This show is being run by Bryan Fuller, who will not tolerate stale relationships. Just go watch Hannibal. Rod Robbenberry does not have any kind of creative control.

Yes. There are maybe three distinct kinds of producers (with occasional overlap) -- those who handle the writing side, those who handle the logistics of making the production happen, and those who handle the business/financial side. Rod Roddenberry is in the third category. His company is probably involved in the production mainly as a financing partner. He may have a consulting role, allowed to have a say in the writing process to express his opinion on how well it fits the Roddenberry vision/legacy/whatever, but the actual writer-producers could pay as much or as little attention to his notes as they wanted.

 

[OpenMaw]

I think you have more voices that would err on the side of having drama than being held to those stranger notions of Gene's. I can't see Nick Meyer or Fuller restricting themselves that way.

 

[cultcross]

Nicholas Meyer certainly doesn't share that philosophy. His two contributions so far to the Star Trek canon involve a lot of conflict between Starfleet characters and human characters. Especially TUC, which it's been said they are "picking up from where it left of". I think it's unlikely that even if Rod follows his father's philosophy, the new show will.

 

[Christopher]

And let's remember that there was plenty of interpersonal conflict in TOS. Roddenberry's "philosophy" as a writer, when he was in his prime and in good health, was that there was plenty of room for character conflict. The infamous TNG-era "no-conflict" dictum that people insist on defining as "his philosophy" was the product of an extremely unwell Gene Roddenberry late in life, and to an extent the product of the well-meaning, overprotective associates of Roddenberry who maybe took his dictums to a more extreme degree than Roddenberry himself would've wanted.

Anyway, I've always understood Roddenberry's TNG-era ideal not as "no conflict whatsoever among the crew," but "no petty conflict." I.e. none of the usual lazy soap-opera fallbacks for generating conflict, like people lying to each other or having stupid misunderstandings or trying to sabotage each other out of jealousy or pettiness or screwing each other over to get ahead. He was open to conflict between characters, but he wanted the kind of conflict that would arise between well-adjusted people who respected each other, the kind of conflict that would come from meaningful differences of opinion on difficult issues and thus carry real weight. But I'm not sure the other staffers working around him and trying to stay true to their interpretation of "Gene's vision" really grasped the nuances of what he wanted.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

And let's remember that there was plenty of interpersonal conflict in TOS. Roddenberry's "philosophy" as a writer, when he was in his prime and in good health, was that there was plenty of room for character conflict. The infamous TNG-era "no-conflict" dictum that people insist on defining as "his philosophy" was the product of an extremely unwell Gene Roddenberry late in life, and to an extent the product of the well-meaning, overprotective associates of Roddenberry who maybe took his dictums to a more extreme degree than Roddenberry himself would've wanted.

Anyway, I've always understood Roddenberry's TNG-era ideal not as "no conflict whatsoever among the crew," but "no petty conflict." I.e. none of the usual lazy soap-opera fallbacks for generating conflict, like people lying to each other or having stupid misunderstandings or trying to sabotage each other out of jealousy or pettiness or screwing each other over to get ahead. He was open to conflict between characters, but he wanted the kind of conflict that would arise between well-adjusted people who respected each other, the kind of conflict that would come from meaningful differences of opinion on difficult issues and thus carry real weight. But I'm not sure the other staffers working around him and trying to stay true to their interpretation of "Gene's vision" really grasped the nuances of what he wanted.

This is a very good point, and it needs to be stressed that the spin-offs after TNG did not have Berman laying down some "no conflict" rule with an iron fist, as the very concepts of those shows were to AVOID that rule. DS9 has a cast of characters that are either Starfleet, Bajoran, or civilian, and the intention was that you would get a conflict because of different perspectives, like Odo's idea of justice going against Starfleet's. VOYAGER's cast was intentionally mixed with Starfleet and Maquis, and the writers really utilized that in the early seasons for some character growth and conflict. Even Tuvok went behind Janeway's back. The two groups would become more cohesive over time, naturally, but you still got conflict in episodes like "Scorpion" and "Equinox". Then ENTERPRISE goes back two hundred years when humans despite having achieved many accomplishments after first contact still had a lot of growing to do as a culture. Archer (and to an extent his human crew) is shown to be petty when it comes to Vulcans. Xenophobia is still an issue among humans, made worse after the Xindi attack.

Overall, I think the whole narrative of Gene demanding "no conflict" to the point that characters never have a heated argument is very exaggerated, especially by writers who might have felt restricted in a box. Plenty of conflict was on all shows, but as you say, there wasn't anything petty about it.

 

[Christopher]

^And I've heard some writers say that the rule against petty conflicts challenged them to raise their game, because they couldn't fall back on the usual lazy shortcuts of characters just being jerks or idiots and thereby coming into conflict for no good reason. So they instead had to come up with more complex and meaningful sources of conflict, or more original and less cliched ones, and in that respect, the "rule" made them better writers.

I've generally tried to do the same in my own writing. I find it more interesting to come up with situations where everyone involved means well and is trying to do the right thing, but their priorities, needs, and worldviews are so different that they come into serious conflict nonetheless. An argument where every side is in the right is much more interesting than one where one side is clearly wrong, or where both sides are wrong and the whole thing could've easily been avoided if someone had just acted like a grownup. It's effective because there's no clear solution, and because it inspires more thought and contemplation about the issues involved. Look at all the thoughtful debates people are having online about the Sokovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War and the issues they raise. Because both sides have good arguments and good reasons for their positions, it's a complicated issue that gets people thinking and debating.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I think it was Braga who specifically expressed that the rule made him more creative. Moore seemed to feel it was restrictive, but he certainly let it all out with BSG featuring nothing BUT flawed characters for better or worse.

 

[Christopher]

I think it was Braga who specifically expressed that the rule made him more creative. Moore seemed to feel it was restrictive, but he certainly let it all out with BSG featuring nothing BUT flawed characters for better or worse.

I actually think Moore did better work within the restrictions of the Trek universe. His debut episode, "The Bonding," was a marvelously subtle and sensitive way of finding meaningful character conflict in a way that didn't require the characters to be petty or cruel or hateful. As for Galactica, I felt it took gratuitous conflict and petty, dysfunctional characterization to a farcical extreme at times. Every character except Helo and Sharon could be counted on to make the worst, most screwed-up and disastrous choice possible in every situation, which got tiresome and contrived.

 

[cultcross]

^And I've heard some writers say that the rule against petty conflicts challenged them to raise their game, because they couldn't fall back on the usual lazy shortcuts of characters just being jerks or idiots and thereby coming into conflict for no good reason. So they instead had to come up with more complex and meaningful sources of conflict, or more original and less cliched ones, and in that respect, the "rule" made them better writers.

I've generally tried to do the same in my own writing. I find it more interesting to come up with situations where everyone involved means well and is trying to do the right thing, but their priorities, needs, and worldviews are so different that they come into serious conflict nonetheless. An argument where every side is in the right is much more interesting than one where one side is clearly wrong, or where both sides are wrong and the whole thing could've easily been avoided if someone had just acted like a grownup. It's effective because there's no clear solution, and because it inspires more thought and contemplation about the issues involved. Look at all the thoughtful debates people are having online about the Sokovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War and the issues they raise. Because both sides have good arguments and good reasons for their positions, it's a complicated issue that gets people thinking and debating.

As I was reading the first half of your post, the exact same example popped into my head. I was so glad that Civil War was able to create a division over something that would also divide the audience, without a clearly 'right' or 'wrong' answer, and yet one where characters naturally fell one side or the other without it seeming forced. It reminds me of a question that is asked in promotion exams for Inspector here in the UK - "Tell me about a time you've faced an ethical dilemma". Everyone cocks up that question because they start talking about a time when someone was quite clearly in the wrong - that's hardly a dilemma. Just as with Star Trek writers, the interviewers are looking for situations where there is a genuine argument for both sides, and you have to make a difficult ethical choice. That's the kind of conflict I'd like to see in the new Star Trek.

 

[SPCTRE]

Eugene's Vision™

My take? We need more "Damnit, Jim! Are you out of your mind?" and fewer well-run conference room meetings.

I like well-run conference room meetings, but I'll always have TNG for that