Enterprise worked as comfort food. If you wanted a Star Trek fix, there it was, nicely prepared with good acting and production values. But there was nothing terribly new or cutting-edge about it.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Enterprise worked as comfort food. If you wanted a Star Trek fix, there it was, nicely prepared with good acting and production values. But there was nothing terribly new or cutting-edge about it.
Amazing how ungrateful fans react to the mere mention of Gene's vision, lol. Like any of this would have resulted if he didn't have that vision. Given Discovery is set ten years before TOS one would think it would have a passing compatibility to the creation that was.. Star Trek.
Many hands made Star Trek.
One vision kicked it off though..
How is a show where a diverse crew composed of a wide assortment of humans and various alien lifeforms working together against a force wanting to stop them for being diverse due to their belief in only one race and total isolation not sticking to Gene’s vision? The reason they don’t trust Michael is because she behaved violently and betrayed the values the Federation is built on.
There were others working to bring more sophistication to science fiction within mass culture (certainly you have heard of 2001).
All this is fine. I'm more worried about Captain Malfoy and his black-badged goons.
Who was the creator of TOS? Who pitched the idea? Come on, credit where credit is due.
Shady admirals have to start somewhere.
OK, try this on for size: the genesis of DS9 was Brandon Tartikoff. He wanted a show about a father and son in space. He was inspired by The Rifleman. He wanted Berman to produce it. He didn't care if it was Trek or not.
Plenty of ideas came from outside the franchise. Some of them influenced Roddenberry.
Not to mention that "Crooked Admirals/Captains" are a staple of Trek. There's always a high ranking member of Starfleet brass with a sinister agenda the heroes have to stop.
If Lorca is one of them, it will be simply be that we've never had one that was part of our main crew/ship.
Would we have had a DS9 if we hadn't had the Original? I'm not saying others didn't evolve the further incarnations but one can't deny Gene's contribution as the forerunner.
We had Sisko and Archer. But no, I don't want such people as main characters.
Hey, ASIDE from a few artistic decisions I don't agree with and some bad personal behavior, I *LOVE* Gene Roddenberry. Speaking as a theist, I hope he's still writing in Stor'va'kor.
That doesn't mean I can't criticize him any less than I can other favorite JRR Tolkien.
TOS was willing to blur the lines between "heroes" and "villains". "Devil in the Dark", to my mind the quintessential Star Trek episode, does this. As do episodes like "Corbomite Maneuver", "Balance of Terror" and even "Errand of Mercy".
Yes. Let me repeat: according to Berman, DS9 might have been independent of Star Trek; it was not what was centrally important to Tartikoff.
The steps from initial pitch to actual show involves a lot of people working together and a lot of compromise both from the actual staff to the network and studio. Gene was far from the lone voice of the show and a great disservice from all the people who contributed to the show like Gene Coon who brought in Klingons, the Federation, Starfleet, Zeframe Cochran, Khan and Prime Directive.
