OK, I wasn't sure if it was something more technical than that. The inconsistency, like with your Marvel example, is part of why I was confused.
Asherman's The Making of Star Trek II, which I have a copy, is definitely a trade paperback. The copy of Gerrold's The Making of Star Trek I have is a mass market paperback.
Do you mean Gerrold's The World of Star Trek? If we're talking about nonfiction/behind-the-scenes Trek books in MMPB vs. trade, then the most recent MMPB I know of is Chekov's Enterprise. Everything I have that's more recent than that is trade or hardcover, though I don't have anywhere near an exhaustive nonfiction collection.
Yeah, that's what IImeant. I've been through hell the last two weeks and my brain is barely functional. Kids, don't write 60k in a three day span. You will hate life.
Yep. Although "Star Trek: Phase II" and "The Questor Tapes" were also mined for TNG, so there was already Roddenberry involvement for Riker/Troi (Decker/Ilia) - and DC and DG were not involved with "Phase II" at all, IIRC. DC did do the novelization of "The Questor Tapes" and worked on the telemovie in some capacity.
Too bad we never got The Winds of Space (which is listed in the front of the Questor novelization. It apparently was going to be a novel of a TV pilot she'd been associated with (and which gets a mention in The World of Star Trek).
Why do Berman and Braga deserve "created by" credit for DS9 and Enterprise, yet DC Fontana and Gerrold don't for TNG? Next Gen is every bit as much of a sequel as DS9 is. TNG had a whole new cast and a new ship. Calling one show a "revival" and another a sequel is simply fan semantics. If anything, DS9 was more of a revival of TNG, then TNG was of TOS. Twin Peaks 2017 is a sequel, not a revival. In my opinion a revival is when a show has shut down production, then resumes production a short time later. It's revived in the same era and picks up right where it left off. A sequel, however, is conceived years after and usually picks up years after with appropriately aged characters. All labels are semantics and shouldn't have such an effect on writing credits. Fontana and Gerrold always had good ideas yet never get much respect for their TNG work because of the overall criticism the first season gets. Nice to see some here realizing and admitting how important their contributions were.
Because Roddenberry was dead before DS9 was conceived. Fontana and Gerrold were (treated as) work-for-hire team members for Roddenberry and did sue successfully for an undisclosed amount each against the Roddenberry Estate. GR had already done a lot of work on TNG when it was "Phase II" (Decker/Riker, Ilia/Troi, Xon/Data), and neither Fontana nor Gerrold were there for that evolutionary part. Gerrold wasn't involved with "Questor" (also Data).
^ It's mentioned in the Reeves-Stevenses' The Making of DS9 book that Gene was involved in conversations with Berman and Piller regarding DS9 right before he died, but at that point they were still mulling over various potential premises and settings for the proposed-spinoff before locking stuff down later like they finally did.
Because there were serious Writers Guild violations on early TNG that, as Therin mentioned, were settled financially after the fact.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Leonard_Maizlish That is true, but unfortunately very few good ideas actually made it air in TNG's first season. I have a feeling that those conversations were something along the lines of: "Hey, Gene, would it be cool with you if we do another Star Trek series?" "Yeah, that's fine." "Okay, cool."
Definitely mentioned was "Majel keeps pestering me for a spin-off comedy, set on Earth, starring Ambassador Lwaxana Troi." Marina Sirtis and Michael Dorn often told that anecdote at conventions.
Your stated as self-described "opinion" on what constitutes a sequel or a revival are exactly the kind of semantic shenanigans you're criticizing. The WGA (Writers Guild of America) has very specific definitions for what are defined as "spin-offs", specifically what are known as a "planted spin-off" or a "generic spin-off". Your "opinion" has no contractual basis in how business is done in Hollywood. I've explained this numerous times on the board. TNG was basically Star Trek with new characters and some tweaks ergo it was essentially the same show and with the same format. That format was established by Roddenberry in 1966. Roddenberry apparently did some writing on the show bible first, and was involved in many of the creative decisions that shaped the show. As such the additions and suggestions by Gerrold and Fontana did not constitute enough of a difference that the WGA was going to give anyone but GR a coveted "Created by" credit. Fontana and Gerrold rightfully sought compensation for work they did, and this was settled without going through full WGA arbitration. The spin-offs were different animals. DS9 in particular had a completely different premise and format than TOS or TNG even though it used plenty of elements from those. also, Roddenberry was not actively involved in the creation of the formats and characters for those shows, hence "Based on".
But there are other cases where a spinoff with the same format but different characters does give co-creator credit to its developers, if not full creator credit. CSI was created by Anthony E. Zuiker, but CSI: Miami and the other spinoffs credit Zuiker, Ann Donahue, and Carol Mendelsohn as the creators. NCIS was created by Donald P. Bellisario and Don McGill (itself a spinoff of Bellisario's JAG, but with a different format), yet its spinoffs are credited solely to Shane Brennan for NCIS: Los Angeles and Gary Glasberg for NCIS: New Orleans -- in both cases, the writers of the shows' pilot scripts, with the creators of the parent show not being credited at all. Going back decades, Mayberry R.F.D. was a direct continuation of The Andy Griffith Show without its title character, but TAGS was "Created by Sheldon Leonard" while MRFD was "Created by Bob Ross." On the other hand, all the Law & Order shows are credited solely to Dick Wolf as creator, even though he only wrote the stories for the pilots of the Criminal Intent and LA spinoffs. So there is precedent for how it was done on TNG, granted. But there's also precedent for sharing creator credit.
^ And in the case of the two Law & Order spinoffs you mention, Rene Balcer and Blake Masters got "developed by" credits. And also, Fontana in particular had a very strong case because she co-wrote the TNG pilot. She goddamn well should have been listed as co-creator with Roddenberry of that particular spinoff.
Thanks for explaining this in more detail. That makes the creator credits make more sense to me. Just last night I was watching an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street with commentary by James Yoshimura and Eric Overmyer, two writer/producers on the show. When the credit "Created by Paul Attanasio" comes up at the end of the opening credits, they say, "That's not true. Tom Fontana created Homicide, with lot of help from Jim Yoshimura." (Attanasio wrote the pilot episode "Gone for Goode," but he only wrote one teleplay for the series after that. He's created as the creator on all 122 episodes of the show, though.) And from what I understand, Roddenberry only added the Q subplot to Fontana's story about Farpoint Station when Paramount was insisting that he write on the pilot and that the first episode be an hour and a half or two hours instead of the standard hour. It's also worth noting that Roddenberry isn't credited as the writer on either the TOS pilot that sold, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or TAS's first episode, "Beyond the Farthest Star." Both of those episodes were written by Samuel L. Peeples.
My pleasure. The criteria for being awarded "created by" typically involves creating the show format, writing the show bible, and/or being involved in writing the pilot. As I've posted previously, although the basis of Roseanne is Roseanne Barr's standup, as she was not involved in the writing of the show format or the pilot she didn't meet the criteria for a "Created by" credit. Sucks to be her (in more ways than 10.) And before anyone goes "but" re TNG, again, the format was largely Star Trek's format with tweaks, two characters were based on those he created for Star Trek [Phase] II and one from The Questor Tapes, no one was going to give anyone but Roddenberry that credit. No. Because: TNG technically did not have a "pilot" just a 2-hour opener And Star Trek the series was the show's "pilot" because the format is 95% the same. And just changing the characters and some particulars isn't enough.
That's a spurious argument, because WGA rules extend the same rights for both pilots and first episodes: https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/determining-separated-rights The second parameter applies to D.C. Fontana, and the third applies to David Gerrold. The Mayberry RFD and CSI examples I already gave refute that. Indeed, creator credits often attach more to characters than to formats. The Bionic Woman had much the same format as The Six Million Dollar Man -- bionic hero fights bad guys while working for Oscar Goldman -- but the creator credit for TBW went to Kenneth Johnson, who wrote the episode introducing Jaime Sommers. Similarly, the creator credits for Angel went to Joss Whedon and David Greenwalt, the latter of whom wrote the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Angel" that revealed the character's backstory for the first time. After all, formats are a dime a dozen. There are a thousand examples of the cop-show format or the lawyer-show format or the private-detective format or the family-sitcom format. What makes a work of fiction legally distinct from others is its characters and other details, not its overall format.
But what were the WGA rules in effect for TNG season one? As an aside, I thought that the Farpoint adventure itself was a bore. It was basically just your standard "solve the puzzle-box" episode. Q at least made the situation interesting.