• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dorothy (D.C.) Fontana wants to write a new Trek novel with Joanna McCoy

JD

JD

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
During a new interview with StarTrek.com about the 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray set with Dorothy (D.C.) Fontana she mentioned that she had an idea for a 3rd Season episode dealing Joanna McCoy as a 21 or 22 year old nurse, and that since it never became an episode she would now like to do it as a novel. I'm not very familiar with her non-TV Trek stories, but she did write some of my favorite episodes, so I would love to see one of her undeveloped episodes turned into a novel. What do you guys think of this idea?
 
JD said:
During a new interview with StarTrek.com about the 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray set with Dorothy (D.C.) Fontana she mentioned that she had an idea for a 3rd Season episode dealing Joanna McCoy as a 21 or 22 year old nurse, and that since it never became an episode she would now like to do it as a novel. I'm not very familiar with her non-TV Trek stories, but she did write some of my favorite episodes, so I would love to see one of her undeveloped episodes turned into a novel. What do you guys think of this idea?
Click to expand...
I like it. Generally I'd love to see a "never produced scripts made into novels" series.
 
Arguably of all living individuals, Dorothy Fontana would be the most likely to truly understand Gene Roddenberry's vision.
 
The Wormhole said:
There is no "Gene's Vision" as far as TOS is concerned...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. Certainly his collaborators were vital contributors, but it was Roddenberry who had the idea to do a non-anthology adult-drama science fiction TV series, something which had never been done before in American TV. He was the one who insisted on naturalistic character writing and well-researched future science, which were virtually unprecedented in SFTV at the time (and quite rare since), although he wasn't as good with the execution of the latter as he was with the concept.
 
The Wormhole said:
There is no "Gene's Vision" as far as TOS is concerned . . . .
Click to expand...
Dimesdan said:
Ah. the old and misguided idea that he had a "vision" beyond making money and shagging around.
Click to expand...
With attitudes like those, I wonder why either of you have any interest in Star Trek in the first place. We all know that Roddenberry was a world-class chiseler, and we all know that he had a problem "keeping his pants zipped and his wick dry," but to say that Star Trek was nothing more than the product of base material greed, and had nothing to do with "finding intelligent life in the television audience" or with presenting a future Humanity that had mostly outgrown racism, sexism, and other forms of petty tribalism is to say that Star Trek is (as Captain David Gold might say) bupkis.
 
Christopher said:
I wouldn't go that far. Certainly his collaborators were vital contributors, but it was Roddenberry who had the idea to do a non-anthology adult-drama science fiction TV series, something which had never been done before in American TV. He was the one who insisted on naturalistic character writing and well-researched future science, which were virtually unprecedented in SFTV at the time (and quite rare since), although he wasn't as good with the execution of the latter as he was with the concept.
Click to expand...
Okay, that much we can attribute to him. I'm more talking there was none of that evolved humanity utopia stuff in TOS.
hbquikcomjamesl said:
With attitudes like those, I wonder why either of you have any interest in Star Trek in the first place. We all know that Roddenberry was a world-class chiseler, and we all know that he had a problem "keeping his pants zipped and his wick dry," but to say that Star Trek was nothing more than the product of base material greed, and had nothing to do with "finding intelligent life in the television audience" or with presenting a future Humanity that had mostly outgrown racism, sexism, and other forms of petty tribalism is to say that Star Trek is (as Captain David Gold might say) bupkis.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, most of the world-building in TOS that made Star Trek what it is today comes less from Roddenberry and more from the other writers he had on his staff like DC Fontana and Gene Coon. In fact, much of what Star Trek is comes from Gene Coon, such as the Klingons and even the Federation itself.
 
The Wormhole said:
Okay, that much we can attribute to him. I'm more talking there was none of that evolved humanity utopia stuff in TOS.
Click to expand...

Except TOS showed a future that had overcome nationalism, racism (toward other humans), and war, which was pretty damn utopian for 1960s audiences when race riots were raging across the country, the Vietnam War kept going on and on, and the threat of nuclear apocalypse loomed over everyone. Just showing a future where human civilization survived and thrived, rather than being a post-apocalyptic wasteland, was a hugely optimistic message for the day. And however backward TOS's gender attitudes are to modern eyes, just having women included as officers and crew aboard a naval vessel at all was very progressive at the time, even if they were in traditional feminine roles like nurse, secretary, and switchboard operator and expected to give up their careers for marriage.
 
hbquikcomjamesl said:
With attitudes like those, I wonder why either of you have any interest in Star Trek in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well I can't talk for @The Wormhole, but for myself, I enjoy watching it and sometimes enjoy reading the books and even when the fancy strikes me, I like to talk about it, I just don't put its creator on a pedestal though

You sound like there is something wrong with wanting to make money and shag around - although admittedly, that last part is a bit questionable if one is a married man or woman.
 
Last edited:
Christopher said:
Except TOS showed a future that had overcome nationalism, racism (toward other humans), and war, which was pretty damn utopian for 1960s audiences when race riots were raging across the country, the Vietnam War kept going on and on, and the threat of nuclear apocalypse loomed over everyone.
Click to expand...
Hell, it's pretty damn utopian for 2016 audiences, when racist riots are raging, a substantial part of the Middle East has been destablized by a "war of choice" that was waged "for fun and profit," the threat of a terrorist apocalypse looms over everyone, and there are reactionaries who are willing to deliberately cause economic collapses in order to further their goal of erasing from the memory of history every bit of political, economic, and social progress we've made since President Roosevelt took office (that's President THEODORE Roosevelt), and usher in a new Gilded Age.

(And yes, female characters in TOS were nurses, secretaries, and "switchboard operators," but they were also research scientists, psychiartists, executive officers, historians, relief helm and navigation officers, lawyers, gunners, and engineers [albeit in science-blue uniforms, for no apparent reason], and at least one "switchboard operator" was quite capable of rewiring her own "switchboard" if the need arose.)
 
Laura Cynthia Chambers said:
Well, unless you ignore Legacies (of which I haven't read book 3 yet, so don't spoil it), you can't have Kirk meet her for the first time.
Click to expand...
You'd also have to ignore Crisis on Centaurus. Or at least have the novel take place before that or the Kirk-era portions of Legacies.
Sarek and Gorkon make it back alive. I won't say who else does.:nyah:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top