Your Opinion: Is "Star Trek" Better or Worse Without Gene Roddenberry?

[Quantum21]

Undecided.

I appreciate what Gene tried to accomplish and if you accept the purity of the ideals of what he wanted to convey, he's incredibly important to Star Trek.

I think the fact the he had all the fallibility of an entitled male of the time that affected both his personal and professional life might diminish him to a lot of fans.

In practice, the guidelines in TNG made it palatable to fans, and an evolution to TOS, but the stories and execution were sometimes subpar. You can blame Gene in part, his failing health, and his lawyer.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think he ever formally 'de-canonized' TOS in totality. However, in the 1979 novelization of TMP, he did have Kirk state that chronicles of his adventures 'wee painted somewhat larger than life'.

This is a quote from Paula Block, speaking to Gene regarding Trek novels from Voyages of Imagination:

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I'm somewhere in between on this one, to be honest. On one hand I do name TNG's first two seasons as my favorites and those were the ones Gene seems to have been involved in the most, but on the other hand I also know that his influence on Trek wasn't always a good one and it often turned out to be a blessing that he left the details to other people to work on. Well and he didn't want for Sir Patrick to play Jean-Luc and Sir Patrick has stated that he thinks Gene never really liked him, so that's a massive 'nope' for me too.

I do think Gene had the right ideas in some ways (making a show about a positive future where humanity actually learned to resolve its societal issues) but when it comes down to the details of how he wanted for his ideas to work... nah.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I do think Gene had the right ideas in some ways (making a show about a positive future where humanity actually learned to resolve its societal issues) but when it comes down to the details of how he wanted for his ideas to work... nah.

This, right here. Gene had the generally good idea about a hopeful future, but it seems to me that his view of meeting that end was to either or ignore, deny, or suppress all our controversial differences...especially when it came to the supernatural. I get that he wasn't a believer himself, but why create a show where none of the main characters are either? Did he really hate faith that much, like people such as Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens? I've seen all six TOS films, and from what I recall the only spiritual concepts addressed involved Vulcan mysticism, specifically the reunion of the body and spirit after death (which could be seen as a form of reincarnation), and the false deity of Sha Ka Ree, initially trusted by Sybok and revealed to be an imprisoned alien with a violent temper. I know some people see God this way, but I certainly don't.

 

[Soleta]

As I understand it, the question here is what we think of his "perfect people" approach. I think many of the shows are just very different. This approach works very well for TOS and obviously no other Star Trek would exist without it and Gene Roddenberry. But if all Star Trek shows followed a "perfect people" approach we couldn't have stuff like DS9, and that is just so full of valuable stories about people being very much less than perfect (this also applies to most shows after he died, but those explore different themes).
If we took the question in general as it is phrased then the answer can only be "yes", unfairly, because most of Star Trek just happened to happen after he died.
If we are talking just TNG then I am somewhat torn. I don't know what influences he had directly but I have to say that the first season of TNG is not really that good (which is fair, it needed time to find itself I guess). However I am not exactly a fan of many of the choices Rick Berman made, which I suspect very much Gene Roddenberry would have made differently.

 

[Lord Garth]

The first major deviations from what Gene Roddenberry wanted in TNG, that I can tell (besides casting Patrick Stewart as Picard), were: "Family", which he was against, but they did anyway; and "Redemption" because he didn't think Worf should be the focus of a major two-parter, but they did anyway.

Then it's taken to the next level with "The First Duty". I'm dead-certain Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have wanted Wesley dragged through the mud like that and made to become part of a cover-up. Ultimately Wesley comes forward but it was only due to pressure from Picard. He felt conflicted, and I don't think Gene would've wanted Wesley to feel conflicted at all.

Then comes not "I, Borg" where Picard is feeling bloody-minded and initially wanted Hugh to carry a virus to the Borg Collective, but what happens afterwards in "Descent, Part I" where Admiral Nacheyev tells Picard that the next time he has an opportunity to wipe out the Borg, he's to take it. I deeply suspect Gene wouldn't have wanted Starfleet to adopt this type of mentality, regardless of the circumstances.

The following year, comes the Maquis. Where there's visibly internal strife within the Federation and Starfleet. In "Journey's End", Wesley speaks out against Starfleet before joining The Traveller. I think Gene definitely wouldn't have liked the former part. Meanwhile, Picard has personal objections to having to relocate the inhabitants of Dorvan V because it reminds him of the forced relocation of Native Americans before. The first thing I think of is Andrew Jackson who was responsible for the Trail of Tears. Dorvan V's solution is to leave the Federation. So, the only way to not be forcibly relocated is to not be part of the "enlightened" Federation. I can't see Gene being too happy with this either.

Disclaimer: I like all of these episodes. I'm just looking at it from the point of view of Gene's Vision and what I think he would and wouldn't have approved of.

And if he didn't like the destruction of the Enterprise in TSFS, he wouldn't have liked the destruction of the Enterprise-D in Generations. That, to me, represents the icing on the cake, where the last remnants of Roddenberry's Star Trek were over.

So, no, I don't think Gene Roddenberry Star Trek continued on in spirit and lasted until 2005 like some say. I think his active involvement (even through delegation) ended in September 1989, when he had a stroke that confined him to a wheel chair. Rick Berman started doing things Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have done as early as the fourth season. -- As early as 1990! -- Then after the fifth season, they paid lip-service to Gene's Vision, but they were just going to do what they wanted to do, because now they were the ones having to make the creative decisions and had to do what they thought was best.

To break it down simply, this is how I see it in the TNG Era:
TNG Conception through first 18 episodes --> Gene Roddenberry is top dog, it's his show.
Late-Season 1 through beginning of Season 3 --> Gene Roddenberry delegates.
Season 3 through Mid-Season 5 --> Gene Roddenberry is a figurehead but doesn't really run things.
Mid-Season 5 through Generations --> Rick Berman has to decide where changes have to be made.

It's really Rick Berman Star Trek from 1989 to 2005.

EDITED TO ADD: Except for what I pointed out above, I think Gene Roddenberry largely would've approved of TNG all the way through "All Good Things". With the TNG Movies, DS9, VOY, or ENT, I lean towards probably not. The TNG Movies morphed TNG into a series of Action Flicks. We don't need to go into DS9 yet again. He was too misogynistic to approve of VOY (it sounds like he became worse about this, not better, as time went on). And I think he would've been against ENT because he'd be of the mindset of "That would take us in the wrong direction. Our mission is to go forward!," to quote Picard in "The Neutral Zone".

DOUBLE-EDIT: TNG is like The Ship of Theseus. "At what point is it really Rick Berman's Star Trek instead of Gene Roddenberry's?"

 

[Kor]

As I understand it, the question here is what we think of his "perfect people" approach. I think many of the shows are just very different. This approach works very well for TOS and obviously no other Star Trek would exist without it and Gene Roddenberry. But if all Star Trek shows followed a "perfect people" approach we couldn't have stuff like DS9, and that is just so full of valuable stories about people being very much less than perfect (this also applies to most shows after he died, but those explore different themes).
If we took the question in general as it is phrased then the answer can only be "yes", unfairly, because most of Star Trek just happened to happen after he died.
If we are talking just TNG then I am somewhat torn. I don't know what influences he had directly but I have to say that the first season of TNG is not really that good (which is fair, it needed time to find itself I guess). However I am not exactly a fan of many of the choices Rick Berman made, which I suspect very much Gene Roddenberry would have made differently.

I would say the "perfect people" thing was a TNG-specific contrivance.
TOS didn't have that. The characters had more humanity and relatability. Kirk acknowledged that we humans struggle with baser primitive instincts.

Kor

 

[James Cole]

Then it's taken to the next level with "The First Duty". I'm dead-certain Gene Roddenberry wouldn't have wanted Wesley dragged through the mud like that and made to become part of a cover-up. Ultimately Wesley comes forward but it was only due to pressure from Picard. He felt conflicted, and I don't think Gene would've wanted Wesley to feel conflicted at all.

What's interesting about this one was episode co-writer Ron Moore felt Wesley should stay loyal to his friends and not snitch, but it was Michael Piller than overruled him.

To break it down simply, this is how I see it in the TNG Era:
TNG Conception through first 18 episodes --> Gene Roddenberry is top dog, it's his show.
Late-Season 1 through beginning of Season 3 --> Gene Roddenberry delegates.
Season 3 through Mid-Season 5 --> Gene Roddenberry is a figurehead but doesn't really run things.
Mid-Season 5 through Generations --> Rick Berman has to decide where changes have to be made.

It's really Rick Berman Star Trek from 1989 to 2005.

I've been meaning to write a post saying to the effect that the Berman Era is really the Berman-Piller Era.

With the exception of ENT S4 and NEM, every other Trek project (save grandfathered-in TOS movie era TUC) during this time period was written or showrun by a Piller direct hire.

 

[mb22]

This is a quote from Paula Block, speaking to Gene regarding Trek novels from Voyages of Imagination:

Thanks. I see your point, but from what it states, GR at that point didn't reject everything in TOS, although had he lived longer, who knows?.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Thanks. I see your point, but from what it states, GR at that point didn't reject everything in TOS, although had he lived longer, who knows?.

Well, you can mostly blame his bad habits for that. As I said in my original post, he drank, smoked, and often used cocaine. But what ultimately killed him was a heart attack. He'd had a stroke in 1989, so that might have contributed as well.

 

[James Cole]

DOUBLE-EDIT: TNG is like The Ship of Theseus. "At what point is it really Rick Berman's Star Trek instead of Gene Roddenberry's?"

Oh come now, we are supposed to be Terry Matalas Cultists(TM).

Why provide an external reference, when one from Lord MatalasⓇ himself is available?

I like to think of it as the story of the broom: If one day you replace the handle, and another day the brush, is it still the same broom? We thought of it as a vessel endlessly repaired and upgraded, brought in-line with current-future tech, so that somewhere underneath all the lights and polish are the bones of Picard’s original ship. Does it make sense? I don’t know. But I sure like the spirit of it.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Interestingly, most of the Roddenberry penned episodes weren’t that good, but he was responsible for rewriting some of the greats. Maybe he was a better rewriter than writer?

I can't recall the source, but I've heard it said that Gene could take a mediocre script and make it a good one. However, he could also take a great script and make it a good one.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

This, right here. Gene had the generally good idea about a hopeful future, but it seems to me that his view of meeting that end was to either or ignore, deny, or suppress all our controversial differences...especially when it came to the supernatural.

Roddenberry--as he took a deep dive into atheism post-TAS era--beat that anti-supernatural drum, but the supernatural, faith and believers were in TOS and TAS, so one can say he did not see that subject as "controversial" or anything needing to be suppressed in those productions, which could be argued left the door open for the entire Vulcan matter to be introduced and taken as fact in The Search for Spock (although it was a production made in the period he was more or less "benched" from being an active participant in ST productions).

He got what he wanted in the one-view, stagnant TNG, but by that time, ST had long been a global phenomenon with its do's and don'ts well-established before 1987, which one can say that was the real emergence of the hardline secular Roddenberry, as that mindset did not guide the overall presentation / creation of TOS/TAS.

I get that he wasn't a believer himself, but why create a show where none of the main characters are either?

Are you referring to TNG? Because in TOS, Kirk and McCoy were most certainly believers.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Are you referring to TNG? Because in TOS, Kirk and McCoy were most certainly believers.

I was referring to the franchise in general, because I never watched much of the original show growing up; "TNG" was my main starting point. But after Gene passed, many of the writers carried on with his humanist philosophy, though admittedly not all of them. I already mentioned the episode of "Voyager", where Torres sees her dead father in the Klingon afterlife, so that's a positive example. But there's also plenty on the opposite side - In the Season 2 "Voyager" episode called "Tattoo", Chakotay is asked how seriously he takes his people's creation beliefs. He in turn asks Janeway how seriously she takes the account of Adam and Eve, to which she replies that she was always taught about evolution as a child. So under Rick Berman's leadership and others', the various shows tended to go both ways...which was very unwise, if you ask me.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I'm inclined to think that if Roddenberry had lived (and was in good health), Series III would still have been set on a space station with a person of color as commander, but it would not be anything like DS9. There would have been other characters and situations, and any conflict between the Federation and some other nation would definitely not escalate to a full-blown war, IMO. There'd be battles and lives lost here and there, but I think Roddenberry would have shown how all-out war could be averted.

Series IV might still have had a female captain, but it wouldn't have been about a ship stuck in a distant part of the Galaxy trying to get back home. It's just a feeling, but I don't believe he would have gone with VOY's basic premise and would have come up with something different.

Series V. I doubt it would have been a prequel to TOS. It may been another show in the 24th-Century or possibly the 25th-Century. I dunno, I just don't think we would have gotten ENT with Roddenberry around. Conversely, I don't think Roddenberry would still be creating any Star Trek shows after Series V.

In summary, we probably wouldn't have had DS9, VOY, or ENT with Roddenberry, but some other shows instead. We probably would have got different TNG movies as well. I don't know if Roddenberry would have signed off on Kirk's fate in Generations or having the Enterprise-D crash. We'd probably get a Borg movie and some standalone movie. I doubt we would have got Nemesis, though...

 

[Moviefan2k4]

"Nemesis" was largely the brainchild of screenwriter John Logan, whose biggest credits at that time were "The Time Machine" and "Gladiator". Logan wrote the screenplay, based on story ideas from himself, Rick Berman and Brent Spiner. The decision to kill Data was largely Brent's as he felt at the time that he was getting too old to play a character who doesn't age. Of course, the movie flopped, for several reasons...but one of them was simply the time chosen. In December of 2002, two other high-profile films were being shown - "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers", and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". So when given the option between either of those or a tenth "Star Trek", many sadly chose the former.

 

[BillJ]

So under Rick Berman's leadership and others', the various shows tended to go both ways...which was very unwise, if you ask me.

Why? Going both ways seems to be part of life.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Why? Going both ways seems to be part of life.

It depends on how extreme you want to take things. If you want to present both worldviews equally, that's one thing, but to practically mock one and defend the other, as if there's no rational alternative? Some in Christian circles refer to that practice as "scientism", or the philosophy which insists that science alone is the only pathway to knowledge. I don't believe that.

 

[BillJ]

It depends on how extreme you want to take things. If you want to present both worldviews equally, that's one thing, but to practically mock one and defend the other, as if there's no rational alternative? Some in Christian circles refer to that practice as "scientism", or the philosophy which insists that science alone is the only pathway to knowledge. I don't believe that.

I take it you missed out on Deep Space Nine?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I take it you missed out on Deep Space Nine?

I only saw a few episodes during its original run, and that was mainly because I had a crush on Terry Farrel at the time. But my enjoyment of the show didn't last very long. It wasn't until Covid broke out, and I was home alone with nothing to do, that I found the show again on Netflix (Paramount Plus didn't exist yet). I started with the pilot, and got to the midpoint of Season 6 in about two months. I quit after that though, because I was starting to feel burned out.