He also wrote great Samurai movies and a snappy musical.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Versatile.
In what reality?? Seriously??
TOS.
Good. It's one thing this show has going for it.
There was no vision. They guy was full of shit.
I'm so confused that people believe there was. To me at least it's clear as day that the guy was a womanising drunk who spammed the airwaves with failed pilot after failed pilot. Only Star Trek succeeded, and only then thanks to all the talented people he screwed over (some literally, others merely figuratively).
On a related note, does anyone else think it's a bit tragic that his grown son has recently come crawling out of the woodwork to cash in on Star Trek? What is his actual contribution to Discovery?
You want to talk about credit where credit is due? Gene L Coon. He's the one who did the heavy lifting of producing TOS and is responsible for developing Roddenberry's ideas into an actual TV show, not to mention creating many of the things now considered pillars of Star Trek, like the Federation, Starfleet and the Klingons.
That's not really his fault. The show's production staff essentially prodded and pestered him to become associated with the show so that could have the "prestige" of association with the Roddenberry family. What was Rod supposed to do, turn away free money on principal? Would you do that, were you in his position?
You're all wrong. Roddenberry's vision came from the original source...
FORBIDDEN PLANET!
FORBIDDEN PLANET!
That's already been brought up a few times in this thread.
My bad, came late to the party..
And Forbidden Planet got it from its actual original source.
THE TEMPEST!
Seriously, if you want to go down the originality rabbit hole, just watch this documentary. And then if you want to learn to see everything on TV and film as repetitive, go here.
Point being that 100% originality is an illusion. Just because you can't tell where something came from doesn't mean it's original. It just means it's carefully obscured or blended with other things.
All that matters is whether one feels a particular affinity for a vision, regardless of accreditation. You gravitate towards stories that confirm your values. It's not about violation of an edict passed own from on high but that the OP (and others) subscribe to that vision and would like it maintained.
So pissing all over Gene as so many TrekBBS threads so really doesn't really invalidate the above fan sentiment.
Last edited:
You have something against "Love Instructors"?
Why bring up 1987 and TNG again?
Older TOS fans aren't 'ungrateful' - we just KNOW that the whole:
"Gene's Star Trek Vision™"
was a LOAD OF CRAP. He started bringing up the Vision™ as he went around to Colleges showing the Star Trek "Blooper Reel" he had (And he charged enough of a speaking fee that the Fraternities or College Clubs that sponsored such event had to charge between $10 to $20 a head.
^^^
I know because I went to this show a few times. It made some Starr Trek fans feel "spechul".
It started getting used for PR when Star Trek:TMP hit, and GR ran with it for decades.
You want to know "Gene's Vision™" of/for Star Trek?
$$ and (.)(.) in that order.
Last edited:
You have something against "Love Instructors"?
The six degrees of Roddenberry's utopia will lead to sex within two degrees.
He was a visionary-imaging the Internet comment section years before
Robert Heinlein.
You could say the exact same thing about Voyager.
It's what Memory Alpha said anyway.
I still maintain the biggest mistake that the writers of DS9 made was turning Dukat into PURE EVIL!!! because too many fans liked him as an antihero. They should have given him Damar's arc over the last two seasons. In my mind there's nothing more Trek than saying there are no monsters, just people - and that every person has the ability to improve themselves.
Eh, there's an if and an and and a butt there. Gul Dukat is a Space Nazi who had work camps, forced women into sexual slavery, had his rival's child abandoned on Bajor, and was a raging monster. The thing was, he wasn't AS evil as some Cardassians because he didn't believe in the racial purity angle and just was a sleazy self-interested snake. He was an irredeemable monster who just had a love for his daughter and a charming personality.
That he was the guy who founded a cult to himself is entirely in character.
Giving that guy "redemption" is hard because it's hard to imagine Gul Dukat would ever see himself having done anything wrong in the first place.
As I said, arguing some people are just pure irredeemable evil doesn't fit with the Trekkian vision of the world at all. There are of course antagonists, but often they are misunderstood, or merely acting out their own agendas, rather than being purely malevolent. DS9 was the smartest of the Trek series in many ways, and turning Dukat from the most complex antagonist in all of Trek into a mustache-twirling caricature of himself was a huge misfire. - one which from everything I read was the writers purposely sabotaging the character because too many fans liked him and rationalized his bad behavior.
I feel a great irony here as Gene Roddenberry's unused criticisms of The Undiscovered Country was the fact the Klingons were being treated as people who hadn't committed atrocities they hadn't answered for. In effect, he felt they were being TOO nice to them in the film.
