Spoilers TOS: Star Trek: The Motion Picture by Gene Roddenberry Review Thread

[Therin of Andor]

I never bought the "Borg made Vejur" but it was a Roddenberry idea.

One day I will find the exact quote again but, IIRC, Roddenberry was being very lighthearted in an interview after the first Borg episode (TNG's "Q Who") and said something like, "Who knows, maybe the machine planet that repaired V'ger would have been of interest to the Borg?"

I don't think he meant that the machine planet itself was the Borg Homeworld. (That was Shatner's interpretation for one of his Return of Kirk novels.) After all, the V'ger Probe fails to acknowledge that the infestation of "carbon units" could be "true life forms". Most Borg drones are "carbon units" with enhancements.

OTOH, one might (must?) assume that Voyager traveled back in time as well as space. That gives it enough time to explore "the universe".

Yes, I think Christopher Bennett speculates this in "Ex Machina"?

Whew! I think I've hit everything. It's a great book. It distills the best parts of the movie and adds the kind of "definite take" that only Roddenberry could manage. And I think he does it well.

Me too. I still remember my first time reading it in December 1979. My first text exposure to Trek after "Mission to Horatius".

 

[Christopher]

I don't think he meant that the machine planet itself was the Borg Homeworld. (That was Shatner's interpretation for one of his Return of Kirk novels.)

More likely Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens's interpretation, since they were the ones who brought in all the broader Trek continuity while Shatner focused on the Kirk arcs. And that was The Return itself, the first novel resurrecting Kirk in the 24th century.

After all, the V'ger Probe fails to acknowledge that the infestation of "carbon units" could be "true life forms". Most Borg drones are "carbon units" with enhancements.

Yes, they're totally different aside from involving cybernetics. Also, V'Ger's tech is so advanced it's on the brink of transcending the physical universe. The Borg are horse-and-buggy tech in comparison. Even the writers of The Return admitted they don't fit together and concocted a handwave about the Borg having separate, very different branches that don't communicate, which made it pointless to claim a connection in the first place. (Then again, maybe Shatner did insist on the connection and that was J&GR-S making the best of their instructions.)

Yes, I think Christopher Bennett speculates this in "Ex Machina"?

That's right. Though Kirk has a line about V'Ger coming from the other side of the galaxy, the "Spock Walk" sequence makes it clear that V'Ger's knowledge spans the universe and includes data from multiple galaxies. Plus it would've probably taken more than 300 years to evolve to such a nigh-transcendent level. I mean, some Singularity fiction posits such changes happening virtually overnight once the threshold is reached, but Trek AIs haven't been shown to work that way.

 

[Tallguy]

Contrary to what Franz Josef seemed to think in his work, an Ensign is a commissioned officer. Granted a low ranking officer (equivalent to and probably just as useless as a Second Lieutenant in the other services), but an officer nonetheless.

Yep. My bad. Not sure what I was thinking. So, CPO Smith wanders in and pours herself a drink...

I'll go back later today and get the exact quote. From the book. I know at some point Roddenberry tried to insist that there were only officers in the fleet. But I think that was later?

True, but there are still plenty of enlisted personnel on the Enterprise, with titles like Crewman, Specialist, Chief, and Yeoman. So aside from the rank, Tallguy's question is fair.

Thank you. I figure in TOS that these were the folks in jumpsuits and such. The Robert Fletcher codified it in TMP.

 

[Christopher]

I figure in TOS that these were the folks in jumpsuits and such.

Sometimes, but plenty of them were in uniform (like the yeomen, Tomlinson & Martine, etc.). You can usually tell by the lack of rank stripes, and by the titles I listed above.

 

[F. King Daniel]

(Yes, Roddenberry introduces the idea of "love instructors", simultaneously telling us that people in the 23rd century are not as obsessed with sex and that Roddenberry was obsessed with not much else. Also, could the name be any more seventies if it tried?)

I really think "love instructor" was a flowery way of saying her first sexual partner, rather than there actually being a job in the future where you go around showing people how to shag.

 

[Christopher]

I really think "love instructor" was a flowery way of saying her first sexual partner, rather than there actually being a job in the future where you go around showing people how to shag.

There's no reason there wouldn't be such a profession. There are cooking instructors, dance instructors, golf instructors, yoga instructors, skydiving instructors, teachers for just about every imaginable athletic or recreational activity. It's perfectly logical that a society free of our pathological and toxic fear of sexuality would approach it as matter-of-factly as any other human experience and have courses in how to do it better.

I mean, even our culture has sex education courses in college -- not hands-on, of course, but providing a lot of information about how human sexuality and reproduction work on a physical, psychological, and social level, how to manage the risks of sexual activity and pursue it safely, how to understand sexual diversity in others, and so forth. I took Sex Ed and I was amazed at how rich and complex the subject is and how many important things go unlearned by most people because such courses are only electives. Sexuality is a fundamental human drive that affects us on many levels, and it's just good sense to have a way to get educated about it rather than stigmatizing it and treating it as some shameful secret we're only allowed to learn about by hearsay or trial and error or porn.

Plus, of course, there's no reason why "love instructor" would need to be a euphemism in a sexually healthy and open society. It stands to reason that it would be about more than the mechanics of sex, but about how to pursue healthy relationships, understand and manage one's own emotions and those of one's partner, etc.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

in TOS that these were the folks in jumpsuits and such.

IIRC, any crew member can wear those jumpsuits. It's not restricted to enlisted personnel. Officers can also wear them (up to and including the captain).

We saw Uhura wearing a jumpsuit in an episode where she was fixing her console, and Geordi once wore one on a TNG ep.

As for love instructors? Meh. It's kind of a pretentious title (typical Roddenberry psychobabble) but the concept itself is sound. Like the sex therapists we have today.

 

[Arpy]

There's no reason there wouldn't be such a profession. There are cooking instructors, dance instructors, golf instructors, yoga instructors, skydiving instructors, teachers for just about every imaginable athletic or recreational activity. It's perfectly logical that a society free of our pathological and toxic fear of sexuality would approach it as matter-of-factly as any other human experience and have courses in how to do it better.

I mean, even our culture has sex education courses in college -- not hands-on, of course, but providing a lot of information about how human sexuality and reproduction work on a physical, psychological, and social level, how to manage the risks of sexual activity and pursue it safely, how to understand sexual diversity in others, and so forth. I took Sex Ed and I was amazed at how rich and complex the subject is and how many important things go unlearned by most people because such courses are only electives. Sexuality is a fundamental human drive that affects us on many levels, and it's just good sense to have a way to get educated about it rather than stigmatizing it and treating it as some shameful secret we're only allowed to learn about by hearsay or trial and error or porn.

Plus, of course, there's no reason why "love instructor" would need to be a euphemism in a sexually healthy and open society. It stands to reason that it would be about more than the mechanics of sex, but about how to pursue healthy relationships, understand and manage one's own emotions and those of one's partner, etc.

This. A majority of people experience a minuscule amount of sexual/intimate possibility in their lives, despite the size of the global population. That should be different in the future like a hundred other things.

The jobs of the distant future will be as different, or more, as ours are than those of the distant past.

 

[David cgc]

I really think "love instructor" was a flowery way of saying her first sexual partner, rather than there actually being a job in the future where you go around showing people how to shag.

I thought so when I first read the book, too, but recently, I've changed my mind for the reasons the others have already said. I think it's the "first" that tripped me up; "love instructor" is one thing, but an entire graduated series of love matriculation? Are there co-ed teams? Did Winona play varsity in ranked competitive sex? Seemed cleaner to interpret it was a nice way of saying "First boyfriend I didn't really click with but, boy howdy, did he show me my way around the block." Even that suggests Roddenberry's enlightened, open-minded/-relationship future; I'm not sure a lot of people today would be fully comfortable with naming their child after their spouse's ex (unless maybe they'd died tragically), nor passing down the story that said ex was specifically memorable for a superlative ability in the realm of boning.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's the "first" that tripped me up; "love instructor" is one thing, but an entire graduated series of love matriculation?

Why not? Maybe not something so formal, but think about other kinds of classes you can take, like dance or yoga. There's no reason you have to pick one instructor and stay with them forever. You might start out with one instructor to learn the basics, and if you later decide to go back to learn more (in this case, maybe taking a refresher course as an adult in preparation for more serious romantic relationships or marriage), you might not be able to get the same instructor.

Again, if we assume this is a sexually open and healthy society, there's no reason to tiptoe around the subject with cute vocabulary. You just talk about it matter-of-factly as you'd talk about taking an aerobics class or learning to sing. So there's no reason to doubt that Roddenberry meant it to be exactly what it sounded like.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

there's no reason to doubt that Roddenberry meant it to be exactly what it sounded like.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There's no reason there wouldn't be such a profession.

An acquaintance of mine has had such a profession for about 30 years.

I know at some point Roddenberry tried to insist that there were only officers in the fleet. But I think that was later?

I definitely recall an interview in which GR said that Starfleet had "no enlisted crew", and that ranks were "more like a job description". Many fans took great umbrage at that.

I also remember that "The Making of TMP" addressed a rank stripes problem from TOS. There was never a differentiation of braid (ie. no braid at all) between Ensign (eg. Chekov) and Crewman (eg Crewman Green). Neither had sleeve stripes, so how do you tell when a crew member was an ensign. But that didn't mean that all crewmen were ensigns. For TMP, ensigns were given one broken stripe of sleeve braid (eg. the Rhaandarite ensign on the bridge).

 

[Desert Kris]

Every conversation about TMP novelization seems to drift this way.

I think it's the "first" that tripped me up; "love instructor" is one thing, but an entire graduated series of love matriculation? Are there co-ed teams? Did Winona play varsity in ranked competitive sex?

The last line is really funny. However that link looks hazardous to a computer's health!

 

[Greg Cox]

The "love instructor" thing seems to flow straight from Roddenberry's 1971 movie, PRETTY MAIDS ALL IN A ROW, which pretty much pushes the idea that teachers ought to instruct their students in sex as well as math, english, sports, etc. In the movie, Rock Hudson plays a hip high-school teacher who deflowers any number of pretty female students, while arranging for a horny female teacher (played by Angie Dickinson) to "instruct" a frustrated male virgin--which is presented as a positive and healthy development.

 

[Christopher]

The "love instructor" thing seems to flow straight from Roddenberry's 1971 movie, PRETTY MAIDS ALL IN A ROW, which pretty much pushes the idea that teachers ought to instruct their students in sex as well as math, english, sports, etc. In the movie, Rock Hudson plays a hip high-school teacher who deflowers any number of pretty female students, while arranging for a horny female teacher (played by Angie Dickinson) to "instruct" a frustrated male virgin--which is presented as a positive and healthy development.

Yeah, back then, horny old men thought that the Sexual Revolution just meant that all women would now be sexually available to them and willing to try anything.

Still, Hudson's character was ultimately the villain of the film, so it was ambivalent about whether his exploitation of the students was a positive thing, though it was certainly presented for the enjoyment of the audience. It's a very weird film tonally, a sex comedy about a serial murderer.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, back then, horny old men thought that the Sexual Revolution just meant that all women would now be sexually available to them and willing to try anything.

Still, Hudson's character was ultimately the villain of the film, so it was ambivalent about whether his exploitation of the students was a positive thing, though it was certainly presented for the enjoyment of the audience. It's a very weird film tonally, a sex comedy about a serial murderer.

The movie sends a lot of mixed messages. The serial-killer twist paints Hudson's character as the bad guy after all, but up until the Big Reveal he's presented as an almost idealized figure: a hip, visionary non-conformist, encouraging his students to think and talk about current events, even going out of his way to get that poor teenage virgin laid, simply out of the goodness of his heart. Indeed, the movie ends on a sunny, upbeat note showing that the formerly awkward virgin is now an assured and confident ladies man, just like Rock Hudson. Heck, it's even hinted that Hudson's character has faked his death and is now living happily in the Bahamas with yet another comely female companion. It's a happy ending all around, completely with a bouncy song by The Osmonds. All's well that ends well . . . aside from all those dead teenage girls.

It's almost as though Roddenberry really wanted to do a movie about high-school "love instructors" but felt he needed the murder-mystery gimmick to sell it.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, it is weird, because Hudson's character is basically a self-portrait of Roddenberry aside from the murder stuff (we hope). I was struck by the fact that one of the antagonistic characters in GR's Spectre pilot is also a GR-like sexual libertine portrayed as a Satanist. I wonder if GR was ambivalent about his own proclivities. If, as seems probable in retrospect, he was a sexual predator (as so many men in authority were tacitly expected and encouraged to be by the culture), perhaps he had some guilt about it. Alternatively, maybe he just had to portray such characters as villains in order to get them onscreen at all over the objections of the censors.

It's almost as though Roddenberry really wanted to do a movie about high-school "love instructors" but felt he needed the murder-mystery gimmick to sell it.

Roddenberry didn't initiate the project; it started as a novel, and Roddenberry was brought on board to rewrite and produce after the first screenplay attempt didn't work out. I think you're reaching to try to connect the film to the "love instructor" bit in the TMP novel. After all, this was the era of the Sexual Revolution, and a lot of science fiction in the '60s and '70s posited a more sexually open future, public nudism, things like that. The idea of a more hands-on form of sex education probably wasn't unique to Roddenberry.

 

[David cgc]

The last line is really funny. However that link looks hazardous to a computer's health!

It's just the tweet I stole the joke from.

I wonder if GR was ambivalent about his own proclivities.

That thought about ambivalence reminds me of something I observed that I never could fully make sense of. Within a few months of each other in the late '70s, Roddenberry used the critique of the Christian religion that "God created faulty humans and then blamed them for the faults he gave them" twice, in the treatment for "The God Thing," where it was a trenchant insight from an intellectually advanced Vulcan, and also in his "Letter From a Network Censor" comedy bit collected on the "Inside Star Trek" album, where it was said by, well, a dipshit.

 

[plynch]

People could sure.use some love instruction nowadays, and I don't mean sex.
Though, when you read articles about so many young men "learning" about sex from porn and what they think is normal, they could probs use some instruction there too. Or "deprogramming" to borrow a term from Pretty Maids era. ANY time I even read of that thing it just literally grosses me out.

 

[trampledamage]

Let's not move too far afield please.