We'll have to agree to disagree.
Has the Red Angel moved the show out of the Prime Universe?
- Thread starter Hoity Toity
- Start date
We'll have to agree to disagree.
You could have just said that you don't know what 'the Death of the Author' means.
There was a documentary a few years ago, Rod Roddenberry's Pity Party, where pretty much everyone seemed to know Gene better than he did.
Yes we will. For me "interpretation" is how something makes you feel not about canon and continuity minutiae
Which Gene is the best one to judge this series and its episodes? The one who wrote the Cage and approved Balance of Terror and which era this series takes place? Or the one who approved Encounter at Farpoint which takes place 100 years later in a far different era? Seems to me, separated by twenty years the only similarity between the two was they both agreed that female characters should not in positions of authority (and some other social attitudes you'd expect from a guy from his era).
Last edited:
The entire package figures into how I feel about something. YMMV.
There are definitely differences between Roddenberry of the 1960's and the Roddenberry of the 1980's.
You seem to be focused on the "canon" issues though.
Does that even work in a multi-media TV/film franchise? It's not like Star Trek is just a novel that was published in 1966.
Actually, I'm not. I'm focused on how the show feels when I watch it. Nothing about it reminds me of the original Star Trek.
Actually, he couldn't. He admits in his documentary that he and his father did not have a great relationship and he didn't know or get what Star Trek was about (hence the narrative of his documentary which was quite painful to watch at times). He was like 16 or 17 when Gene died therefore he could only speak for himself and not his father.
As for how much legal authority Rod Roddenberry has to creatively direct Star Trek? I would guess none. CBS has a duty to pay him his father's percentages (like 5 or 10% but part of that was watered down by divorce), however, they can produce Star Trek without his input.
Not exactly a person who changed for the better.
I dunno. I'm getting a different interpretation from your posts.
I know they can produce Star Trek without his input. How Gene and Rod got along before doesn't matter. Rod is representing the Roddenberry family in 2019. As long as he's an Executive Producer, I think he's representing approval.
Also: in the time since Gene Roddenberry died, Rod might've gotten to know him better through Majel Barrett, who lived until he was in his mid-30s.
I don't see how?
I've been pretty consistent. It doesn't play like a prequel to the 1960's Star Trek. I've also been pretty consistent that Discovery can be a good show (and has had its moments) regardless of how the powers that be present it.
We agree to disagree there. Everything about this series reminds me more of TOS than either TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT for the most part, Although it does reminds me of the Nicolas Meyer movies and First Contact even more.
Which is fair. I can only speak to my opinion of what I see on-screen.
Actually, it does. It would be disingenuous, dishonest of Rod Roddenberry to represent his views as being those of his father's given their history and his admissions. Yes, he can speak and represent the estate of Gene Roddenberry however that is substantively a different issue.
Now, could he choose to be dishonest and disingenuous? Yes, of course he could, however, that too would be telling in and of itself.
All that can be inferred by his "executive producer" title is that he's getting paid. That title often means different things on different shows. Could be honorific.
A prequel is just something that takes place before a previous installment, which DISCO and ENT before do
Similar threads
