Seriously, what's "Gene's Vision"?

[JesterFace]

Season 3 was the last time at which Gene could have been described as being actively involved, and the writers were clearly challenging his dicta. By season 4, they had clearly won: Family, a story that explored the fears of the captain, was not something that Roddenberry would previously allowed.

Is this information from a reliable source or just an assumption?

Maybe Gene approved many things that were previously "banned", after all, he was a producer.

 

[Longinus]

Maybe Gene approved many things that were previously "banned", after all, he was a producer.

This certainly happened. Part of the problem was people who really didn't get the point of the 'vision' trying to uphold the letter of it. Leonard Maizlish was obviously one but Maurice Hurley was another. He expressed his frustration for Gene overruling him when what he though he was doing was upholding Gene's vision.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Is this information from a reliable source or just an assumption?

Maybe Gene approved many things that were previously "banned", after all, he was a producer.

Here's a clip for you. It's also better documented in Fifty Year Mission II.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JesterFace]

Here's a clip for you. It's also better documented in Fifty Year Mission II.

Thanks for the link.
It really sounds like at the very beginning of season 4 Gene stepped back a little and let others take more control.

 

[Rahul]

Agreed. This is hardly new. The demonisation/tearing down of Roddenberry has been going on since his death. At this point, those that tear apart Roddenberry and mock his 'vision' etc are far greater than those with any blind adherence to it.

He was a man. A heavily flawed man with plenty of personal demons and - too often - a casual disregard for others. However, he had a terrific imagination and created something truly wonderful (obviously not alone, nobody is claiming that).

He DID have a vision - that mankind could improve upon itself; that things could and would 'get better'; that the 'human adventure' was just beginning, and would continue to thrive. Both TOS and TNG clearly demonstrate this.

Yes, he also liked his women, and money and all the other things people continually bring up - I don't recall Gene ever saying he was perfect, or lived the ideals he saw for humanity's future.

People seem to criticise the fact that it was a changing vision - but why shouldn't Gene's vision and view of things evolve and change over time? I have definitely changed my views on many things in twenty years.

Optimism for the future.
People resolve basic need problems.
Scientific progress leads to good things, not bad.
People generally overcome prejudice.
Humans in the future join the larger galactic family.

What's wrong with that?

THANK YOU very fucking much!

I really don't get this "creator-bashing" that so many fans seem to indulge in. Whether it's Gene Rodenberry (he was a douche!), George Lucas (he raped my childhood!), or something minor as Berman&Braga (They delivered 4 consecutive series of successfull television series! Fuck them!). It's not limited to our fandom, other's have that as well (Steven Moffat created every new iconic monster of nu-Who, but his latest storylines are somewhat messy and confused. Fuck him, he should go away!)

I really don't get it. Without those people creating all this stuff, people wouldn't even have it in the first place. Where they perfect? Hell no. Did they have help? Of fucking course! And everyone helping deserves to be mentioned! Does that change the fact those people started out, a blank paper in front of them, and delivered an enourmous vision, entertaining content for millions of people, and influencing the imagination of all of us?

I guess it's some form of perverted jealousy. Where those people (and Gene Roddenberry) saints? No. Just people. But very fucking successfull people that enriched the world with their visions that'd be seriously missed if we never saw them.

 

[Longinus]

Thinking that the overall point of the 'vision' is valuable is not same as thinking that Gene was always right about everything, even creatively. He had some really extreme ideas, but ultimately I think this back and forth of different creative directions created something really special and unique.

Also, interesting thing about that video, if they had listened Gene there would have been completely casual gay kisses in TNG 's third season.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Gene's Vision is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow. It is a wreath of pretty flowers, which smell bad.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I guess it's some form of perverted jealousy. Where those people (and Gene Roddenberry) saints? No. Just people. But very fucking successfull people that enriched the world with their visions that'd be seriously missed if we never saw them.

It's one thing to credit their creativity, but we still must look at how they comported themselves. I can't talk about all those people (and I don't know what series Braga launched besides Enterprise), but some of these men created tensions within the production that sometimes threatened the quality of the show. Some of those Berman years, with and without Roddenberry, were truly tumultuous, and it's difficult to point to any positive inputs Roddenberry made after bringing on Diana Muldaur (not a comment on the quality of the input). I think that they all get a lot of credit, but Star Trek was in many hands, and some of those were at odds with one another. And if we are going to say they weren't saints, we shouldn't find backdoors to their canonization.

 

[Armus]

Here's a clip for you. It's also better documented in Fifty Year Mission II.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Gene was right that Family had no jeopardy or suspense. Not one of my favorites but it does show the aftermath of Picard's experience with the Borg.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Some of those Berman years, with and without Roddenberry, were truly tumultuous

This is true, but, is this relatively unique their handling of Trek, or is it something that almost *all* shows deal with but we don't generally know about it because we don't go to (for example) a PersonofInterestBBS, and also because we're the sort of obsessed fandom that knows "that mare had a foal"?

 

[Rahul]

It's one thing to credit their creativity, but we still must look at how they comported themselves. I can't talk about all those people (and I don't know what series Braga launched besides Enterprise), but some of these men created tensions within the production that sometimes threatened the quality of the show. Some of those Berman years, with and without Roddenberry, were truly tumultuous, and it's difficult to point to any positive inputs Roddenberry made after bringing on Diana Muldaur (not a comment on the quality of the input). I think that they all get a lot of credit, but Star Trek was in many hands, and some of those were at odds with one another. And if we are going to say they weren't saints, we shouldn't find backdoors to their canonization.

Yeah, of course. Some of them were difficult people. And many, of not all artists have some form of "prime" or "peak performance", where they deliver their best work, and somewhat blunder later. I think Steven Spielberg is still strong, but not as strong anymore as he was during his absolute prime.

But nothing of that takes away their achievements in any way!
We don't need to paint them as saints. But neither should we demonize them or diminish their work. And, sadly, both is done regularly, and the latter has become quite popular in this fandom. Which IMO is a bad habit. We can see someone as the human being they are, and still appreciate the invaluable work they have done.

 

[JesterFace]

I'm not sure when and where I heard this but I've heard something like this about Star Trek. (not word for word)

"Gene created this universe and let us play in it."

I guess that thought fits here nicely.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Gene created this universe and let us play in it."

He had a little help.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

This is true, but, is this relatively unique their handling of Trek, or is it something that almost *all* shows deal with but we don't generally know about it because we don't go to (for example) a PersonofInterestBBS, and also because we're the sort of obsessed fandom that knows "that mare had a foal"?

When we read the experiences of Fontana, Snodgrass, Manning, Beimler, Piller, Behr, Sussman, or the Jacquemettons, we are seeing the inside of the production from the perspective of veterans who may know a thing or two about how a writing staff should run. Perhaps Moore and Fuller could be forgiven some naivete, but even Braga had to come around to admit that he fouled up important aspects of Enterprise. Conversely, we know a lot about how Behr ran DS9, where Berman's involvement was less internalized, producing a less contentious environment.

 

[JesterFace]

He had a little help.

I guess that's what the playing part means.
Gene created a new world and then writers, producers and everyone else who have been a part of Trek, "played" in it by creating stories and more characters and so on.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

But nothing of that takes away their achievements in any way!
We don't need to paint them as saints. But neither should we demonize them or diminish their work. And, sadly, both is done regularly, and the latter has become quite popular in this fandom. Which IMO is a bad habit. We can see someone as the human being they are, and still appreciate the invaluable work they have done.

I think that is completely fair. Roddenberry wanted to make his mark on the world, intellectually, financially, and perhaps, genetically. I think it was noble to try to make televised sci-fi more adult. I think that those who took up that banner did a far better job than Roddenberry. I also think that Roddenberry was better at providing rough outlines than filling in the details, and when he did try to fill in the details, the results were uneven.

 

[Rahul]

I think that is completely fair. Roddenberry wanted to make his mark on the world, intellectually, financially, and perhaps, genetically. I think it was noble to try to make televised sci-fi more adult. I think that those who took up that banner did a far better job than Roddenberry. I also think that Roddenberry was better at providing rough outlines than filling in the details, and when he did try to fill in the details, the results were uneven.

It was pretty fucking impressive to make a science fiction television series at that time at all! And a good one at that. Gene might have been a dick sometimes, and lazy in the day-to-day business at others, but don't forget: He was the driving force behind the initial creation of both TOS and TNG. Two(!) of the most popular and best-known science fiction series of all time. That many details, characters, designs, famous stories, backstories were added by other people? Well, those deserve praise, too! Fuck-ton of praise! Star Trek wouldn't be the one we know without Fontana, or Coon, or Jeffries, or many others. But to say GR "only started" it, and others were better at what he was doing, would be the understatement of a century.

 

[Harvey]

Gene created something that we all love, and I will forever be grateful. He could have chosen to make a western or a cop show instead.

It’s ironic, then, that the two other pilots Roddenberry produced for Desilu while he was trying to get NBC to commit to Star Trek were a cop show (Police Story) and a western (The Long Hunt of April Savage). Had the networks involved gone another way (those pilots didn’t sell, but Star Trek did), Roddenberry’s career would have likely gone in a totally different direction.

 

[suarezguy]

Is this information from a reliable source or just an assumption?

Maybe Gene approved many things that were previously "banned", after all, he was a producer.

I get the sense that, while still having some nitpicks, he stepped back in season 4 at least in part because he liked what Berman and Piller had done and were doing, thought they largely understood his vision and did well working within it. Although another part of him stepping back was because he had to due to declining health.
But late in life Roddenberry was pretty vocal about disliking/disapproving of STVI, I don't think he would just give insincere happy talk about later TNG if he thought it was deteriorating.

 

[Longinus]

I also think that Roddenberry was better at providing rough outlines than filling in the details, and when he did try to fill in the details, the results were uneven.

Yeah, that probably is true.