What do you think "Gene Roddenberry" would think about with "Discovery?"

[Jayson1]

It seems like anytime a new Trek gets started it's our duty as fans to at least ask the question, yet I don't think I have noticed anyone do it as of yet so I figured I would do the choir this time. Me I think he would have hated having the show be about War. I don't think he would care about the visuals for the most part but I don't think he would like it being so darkly lit. I don't think he would care about canon issue's and I do think he would love having a black female lead and a diverse cast. I don't think he would like the idea though of Burnham being Spock' sister. His son is a producer I believe so I do think he would be quiet about the things he didn't like so as not to ruin things for his son and mess up his money.

Jason

 

[Mirror Mirror]

He would have hated DS9 as well.

 

[Dr. Bashirs protege]

The dude DID NOT WANT TO MAKE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. God rest his soul, but it only got made because he passed away. The man was a visionary but I have no illusions about his less than....let's say "excellent taste" in his later years.

 

[Spider]

He'd have wished like hell he'd had access to today's special effects capabilities.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

He'd have wished like hell he'd had access to today's special effects capabilities.

This, a thousand times this. I do wonder what klingons would look like with today FX under his guidance. I do not think many folks would be happy lol

 

[EyalM]

Late 80's Roddenberry would have probably hated it. All that conflict between starfleet officers.
But if he had lived to the present, seen how TV dramas changed over the last 30 years, he might have seen it as logical product of how TV is done today.
60's Roddenberry might have loved it. He had conflict in TOS all the time.

 

[Jayson1]

It's also kind of curious how his "vision of the future" would have changed having lived though Clinton,Bush,Obama and now Trump. I imagine he would be all for diversity but would he still believe in no-conflict and love instructers? I also think he would hate income inequality but he might still want the woman characters to wear skimpy outfits. I think he would really,really hate CBS All Access and maybe even being on network tv again in general but might like the idea of something like Netflix or HBO were you have more creative freedom.

Jason

 

[Campe]

Late 80's Roddenberry would have probably hated it. All that conflict between starfleet officers.
But if he had lived to the present, seen how TV dramas changed over the last 30 years, he might have seen it as logical product of how TV is done today.
60's Roddenberry might have loved it. He had conflict in TOS all the time.

Beat me to the punch!

 

[Tosk]

The dude DID NOT WANT TO MAKE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. God rest his soul, but it only got made because he passed away.

It was made and screened a year and a half before he died.

 

[Fandango831]

The man was a visionary, but he was also convinced he was the only one who could fulfill that vision. I think he would love the fact Trek was still around but he would hate the fact he was not the one spearheading it and would probably rail it harshly (unfairly so) for not being his exact thought child. It was the Gene way or the Highway in his book unfortunately.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

The man was a visionary, but he was also convinced he was the only one who could fulfill that vision. I think he would love the fact Trek was still around but he would hate the fact he was not the one spearheading it and would probably rail it harshly (unfairly so) for not being his exact thought child. It was the Gene way or the Highway in his book unfortunately.

Gary Gygax, the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons was the very same way.

 

[McDuff]

The dude DID NOT WANT TO MAKE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. God rest his soul, but it only got made because he passed away. The man was a visionary but I have no illusions about his less than....let's say "excellent taste" in his later years.

Dude, you're talking like Best of both worlds is the only good part about Star Trek The Next Generation. I like all of it!! Well, not every single episodes or aspects but all of it in general. TNG was a great success. 7 seasons of great entertainment not just 2 episodes!

Yes, Roddenberry didn't want to turn Star Trek into a dumb down action movie or even something else. So what? This scientific, futuristic, optimist, moral/ethical edge is what make Star Trek different than all the TV shows and action movies out there. In that aspect, it's similar to only a few shows like Doctor Who, Stargate, Sliders, etc.

I don't think every TV shows and movies should be like Star Trek, but they shouldn't be like all action, some drama, heroism but no brain movies either and I'm a fan of action movies! Roddenberry was right into holding Star Trek to some principles because this is what made Star Trek unique and a one of the biggest,most popular and recognizable franchise in history.

Personally, I don't mind if they turn Star Trek into a darkgrim, dystopian future, action movie, but still I wonder why they have to do that to Star Trek (beside for the money of course). Why not make their own TV shows/Movies? Like the new Battlestar Galactical did (if you forget the old ones). Game of Thrones, Rome and Spartacus are some of my favorite TV series. So was the original Total Recall movie. There's blood, sex, gore, drama, action, etc. But I'm very glad Star Trek TNG was not exactly like those TV shows/movies.

Star Trek TOS and TNG were a bit like Doctor Who and Stargate for me. They have a futuristic, scientific, optimistic intellectual edge and I'm very happy about it. Beside for the money, why turn Star Trek specifically into a darkgrim dystopian future tv shows like 90% of Sci-fi movies/tv series and 90% of regular action movies? I love Star Trek TNG, Orville, Doctor Who, Game of Thrones and Spartacus. They are all their own thing and Roddenberry was 100% right to try to keep it that way (as any creator of a TV series/Movies). Don't like it? Make your own TV shows like Game of Thrones, Stargate and Battlestar Galactical did. So every shows have their unique edge. No I don't want Game of Thrones to be more optimistic about the future (or their made up past), it doesn't fit Game of Thrones but it fit Star Trek very well.

Roddenberry's vision is what make Star Trek unique to me. But not every shows should be like Star Trek, nor should all TV shows be like Game of Thrones.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't care. Watch Chaos on the Bridge and you'll know why.

 

[Tenacity]

Roddenberry's vision is what make Star Trek unique to me.

Gene's vision was total control, personal authority, women, liquor, drugs and money.

 

[Noname Given]

He would think the following, in the following order:
1) Can I get any cute starlets who want their SAG card on my casting couch?
2) What's my cut (of the merchandising/profits, etc.)?
3) Are enough people watching/subbing to get a second season pickup and keep this gravy train rolling?

 

[McDuff]

Gene's vision was total control, personal authority, women, liquor, drugs and money.

For the record, my knowledge of Gene's vision is related to what TOS and TNG were (especially the first few seasons). Not what he said in interviews(?) or what other people said about his vision. I see this progressive, scientific, optimistic, exploration of new world and civilizations, impact of technology edge to TOS and TNG as part of it. Many sci-fi shows, including many I love, are about a dystopian future, fear of the future, etc and don't provide anything special intellectually. They can be seen as a warning about what not to do. I feel TOS and TNG (like a few other shows like Doctor Who, Stargate, The Orville) bring something fresh and unique to the table. Since it's the unique part about TNG and TOS compared to the other run of the mills sci-fi works, I consider it part of Gene's vision. TNG and TOS also have spaceships, action, drama, humor, romanticism, etc, it's great, but by themselves, those are not unique to those shows.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Gene didn't like and/or probably would not have liked most of the stuff I like the most in this franchise. I kinda don't care what he'd have thought about Discovery, which I am liking thus far.

 

[RobertCardassian]

Was Gene a womanizer?

wow never read about this. suprising. i knew about the weed and the drugs in the 70s

Moving to California to pursue his writing career, he went on to become a television producer and became well known for being a womanizer. During the production of his series The Lieutenant, he entered into relationships with Nichelle Nichols and Majel Barrett, seeking to have an open relationship with both women. Nichols has since said that they broke up after this, but she was later found more than once in Roddenberry's office on Star Trek either nude or partly clothed. By the time he worked on that series, his relationship with Barrett was well known, and they openly shared an apartment near Desilu Studios where it was filmed. He paid his secretary extra to provide an alibi for when he was with other women, both to Eileen and Barrett. His frequent relationships with female actresses were well known, and he would boast of late night casting sessions. He sought to divorce Eileen in 1968, but afterwards felt that he didn't get his fair share of assets.

guy was kind of an asshole, no?

 

[McDuff]

guy was kind of an asshole, no?

I know nothing about Roddenberry's personal life but him being an asshole or a great person is not related to his vision for Star Trek.

In fact, Roddenberry could have made another tv series about a dystopian future with stupid stories, gore, violence and it would still not be related to his vision for Star Trek. I would hate it of course, but it's not related to his vision for Star Trek. It would be a vision for another TV show of his.

I think Star Trek is something unique. But the Spartacus TV show is also unique (it has gore, sex, violence and good stories!). I'm sure some people could never get over the gore and sex of Spartacus, but it's part of the reason that made Spartacus great. It was raw. This is true for every TV shows which are their own thing. Especially those who bring something original, a vision, to the table.

 

[unimatrix7]

Do people still believe that Gene Roddenberry was a visionary? I always thought the guy was full of shit, and a bit of a dickhead. I suspect he was more of a Zefram Cochrane than a, I don't know, Kahless.

At least nobody so far in this thread has referred to him as the Great Bird of the Galaxy anymore. A more pompous and idiotic nickname has never been conceived.

I don't know what he'd think of Discovery. It doesn't matter much to me personally - I always thought the best things in Star Trek over the decades of his involvement happened in spite of him, not because of him. One thing I do hate about the recent two incarnations of Star Trek (Kelvinverse and Discovery) that I've witnessed as a grown adult (and I suspect a similar phenomenon occurred when DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise went to air too) is the tendency for actors to get misty eyed talking about Gene's Vision as though they had any idea who the bloke was before some PR goon worded them up.