Gene Roddenberry Biopic

[trekfan_1]

Everyone is pointing out good reasons for why this project is likely not going to move forward. I'm just curious as this was announced as happening and "in the works" by major outlets. IIRC, it was set in motion well after the Me too movement. I guess its possible as they were working towards doing this, they soon realized how problematic and tricky it would be to pull this off for all parties involved.

But In terms of dramatic presentation, there is definitely a wealth of material out there to make a very compelling story. Much more to chew on than many other biopic attempts.

 

[137th Gebirg]

There was a single 11-episode season History Channel Roddenberry series a couple of years back (Nov 5, 2021 - Mar 31, 2022) that touched on some of the topics that people want to see. It was called "The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek". Amazon has it available for DVD here.

The fact that it never got a higher-end BRD release probably means that it didn't have the highest viewership that they would have liked (despite its relatively high Amazon & IMDB ratings), probably because you had to get a specific streaming service at the time to see any episodes after the pilot. Can't remember which one - a boneheaded move by any measure by the producers and their pro-streaming overlords. Consequently, it's likely to be the closest we'll ever get to such a project being made.

 

[trekfan_1]

Theres always the option to go with the "Its a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" route.

I.e make it a non traditional biopic. "Beautiful Day" for example, only centered on a certain aspect of Fred Rogers's life in reference to another individual that crossed paths with him at a certain point in time.. So much of Rogers' upbringing, life experiences etc was not even covered in that film due to its format. .. And it was still successfully done IMO. This could be a way to tell a more "tight" Gene Roddenberry story without the need to get into all of the A-Z details that can be tricky to accurately present to the audience

BTW, before I get the wise cracks, I know I know, Fred Rogers and Gene Roddenberry are 1000 percent polar opposites to each other . Just used that artistic choice as an example of a possible approach in doing a biopic that doesn't necessary need to be in a "tell all" format by default.

 

[HotRod]

I think the problem, besides his personal issues, is that Gene Roddenberry is just not that interesting.

He was a dude from Texas who flew in the war. He eventually became a writer and had one really good idea that was greatly expanded on by writers who were, to be frank, far better than him. He milked that one good idea for all it was worth for the next 25 years until he eventually dropped dead.

The End.

The womanizing, alcohol and drugs are really the only things that make him interesting.

 

[137th Gebirg]

True...

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm more interested in the drama that went into making TOS, the movies, and TNG.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm just curious as this was announced as happening and "in the works" by major outlets.

A lot of projects get announced as "in the works" by major outlets that never see the light of day. How many fourth Kelvin movies have been announced so far?

 

[137th Gebirg]

A TOS Battlestar Galactica revival in the form of series and movies has been announced at least 7 or 8 times since the end of NuBSG, and several times more before it started. All the (surviving) actors have continually expressed their interest in such a project. Yep, this is definitely nothing new, and no guarantee of anything.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I think the problem, besides his personal issues, is that Gene Roddenberry is just not that interesting.

He was a dude from Texas who flew in the war. He eventually became a writer and had one really good idea that was greatly expanded on by writers who were, to be frank, far better than him. He milked that one good idea for all it was worth for the next 25 years until he eventually dropped dead.

The End.

The womanizing, alcohol and drugs are really the only things that make him interesting.

But that means it also not that complicated of a film to produce.

Start with the submission of the Star Trek pilot in the ‘60s, then the first act covers his womanizing behind the scenes during the original run of Star Trek, right up to his divorce. And then skip ahead to the late ‘70s for act 2. Focus on the business side and getting the TOS films and TNG going. And getting the TOS cast back together for the films. His final years (i.e. filming of TUC and all the drama behind the scenes) being act 3.

Its just a question if its going to be a 2 hour biopic (as they do for “Its a Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood” and various singers), or if its going to be 3 hour biopic like “Oppenheimer”.

 

[HotRod]

My point in saying he's not very interesting, is that no one is gonna watch it. Outside of Trekkies, no one knows or gives a shit about Gene Roddenberry.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Meanwhile, if a biopic was made about George Lucas, I’m sure it would have appeal to both Star Wars and non-Star Wars fans. Since its about a pop culture figure who create a pop culture phenomenon.

A lack of interest in Roddenberry’s influence on pop culture, and culture in general, seems like a marketing issue.

 

[137th Gebirg]

And Lucas doesn’t have nearly as controversial and me-too’d personal history as Roddenberry had. I can see where a lot of people wouldn’t want to see or support that kind of backstory.

 

[trekfan_1]

I don't buy Roddenberry not being "interesting" enough as the reason this can not be done, and be done successfully. Biopics have been made (some garnering accolades) for lesser known celebrities like Jazz performers or people who are mainly known within their own genre. We're not talking about a big budget production either. Roddenberry was not a mild mannered figure. There's plenty enough drama , color , controversy and angst within Roddenberry"s life and inner circle to make a compelling story without even needing to fictionalize too much.

And I'm pretty sure this would not be marketed simply as a " Gene Roddenberry " biopic. ("who?") It would be rolled out as the " life story of the man who created Star Trek".. And yeah , I DO think that is a marketable concept. Yes he's not Elvis, but biopics are not only done for Elvis- level celebrities .

Not wanting the dirt to get out, problematic negativity ( especially through a 2023 lens) , harming the Star Trek brand or re-opening old wounds, to me would be much more valid reasons for this not being made.

 

[The Wormhole]

"The man who created Star Trek" is not really that big a draw for the general public as like it or not, Star Trek is not that popular among the general public. And besides, ultimately what do you have, a story of a Hollywood producer who was a corrupt douche battling personal demons including alcoholism and a wandering libido. Not exactly a unique tale. The best hope would be to line its release up with the franchise's anniversary as a TV or streaming movie, like the docudrama about Doctor Who's start that was released for that franchise's 50th anniversary.

 

[trekfan_1]

"The man who created Star Trek" is not really that big a draw for the general public as like it or not, Star Trek is not that popular among the general public. And besides, ultimately what do you have, a story of a Hollywood producer who was a corrupt douche battling personal demons including alcoholism and a wandering libido. Not exactly a unique tale. The best hope would be to line its release up with the franchise's anniversary as a TV or streaming movie, like the docudrama about Doctor Who's start that was released for that franchise's 50th anniversary.

Agree to disagree on marketability. And Even i if agreed, you don't NEEd to be popular/ very well known for a biopic. Look up the movie "Bird" from 1988. Movie is a about a Jazz musician. Im pretty sure jo schmoo off the steet doesnt know who he was. Millions like them around.

 

[HotRod]

Look up the movie "Bird" from 1988.

That film cost between 9 and 14 million dollars to make.

It made 2 million.

You're not helping your cause.

 

[FederationHistorian]

The more I think about it, a Roddenberry biopic would be more about Gene Roddenberry, the fandom’s relationship with TOS through the Trekcons and the fan mail, and the cast of TOS’s relationship with Star Trek. And in particularly, Leonard Nimoy’s relationship with Star Trek. The whole thing with Nimoy tearing up the nude photos of Kim Catrall during TUC filming in the name of protecting the franchise could be done in relation to Gene’s behaviour during TOS.

 

[trekfan_1]

That film cost between 9 and 14 million dollars to make.

It made 2 million.



You're not helping your cause.

Roddenberry productions was looking to make this. I don't think it even was/is a theaters project. Scaling of the movie can be taking into consideration.

But there are tons out there who made money. Public Enemies, ( bank robber),
The Terminal, (airport vagrant) , Pursuit of Happiness (homeless salesperson) Green Book (pianist)

Well made biopics can make money. Despite being about low profile public figures. Biopics are not only done for Elvis, Elton John, Freddy Mercury and the Jonny Cashes of the world. That's like saying only books with pictures can make money.

For shites and giggles, I asked Chat bot this question: Do you think a biopic about Genre Roddenberry can be something that the general public can be interested in seeing? can it make money?

Answer:

A biopic about Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, could potentially be of interest to the general public, especially to fans of the Star Trek franchise and those interested in the history of science fiction television. Gene Roddenberry played a significant role in shaping the cultural landscape with his creation of Star Trek, which has had a lasting impact on popular culture.

The success of a biopic often depends on various factors, including the quality of the storytelling, casting choices, marketing strategies, and timing of the release. If the film is well-executed, provides insights into Roddenberry's life, and captures the spirit of his contributions to the entertainment industry, it could attract both fans and a broader audience.

Additionally, the popularity of Star Trek and the continued interest in science fiction as a genre might contribute to the film's appeal. Biopics about influential figures in the entertainment industry have been successful in the past, and Gene Roddenberry's story has the potential to resonate with audiences.

I'm not saying chatbot is right. But if it's response is in part a reflection of what it perceives as a all encompassing consensus, then to me it carries some weight. At the very least my notion that it * can * work is not very far fetched.

 

[Stuart Wilson]

Rather than a biography of Roddenberry, why not do something like "An Adventure in Space and Time" The docudrama the BBC made about the creation and early days of Doctor who. An Adventure in Space and Time - Wikipedia
That way it could focus on the all the people involved in the creation and the cast.

Stuart

 

[drt]

Rather than a biography of Roddenberry, why not do something like "An Adventure in Space and Time" The docudrama the BBC made about the creation and early days of Doctor who. An Adventure in Space and Time - Wikipedia
That way it could focus on the all the people involved in the creation and the cast.

Stuart

Yeah, I think that's a more interesting tale to tell.