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

[drt]

The fact that it could be going on during parts of TNG and we don't hear about it at the time leaves an impression that the war wasn't all that significant and that the enemy wasn't an especially threatening one, despite evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, the Cardassians weren't much of a threat when they were originally introduced in "The Wounded", which featured a single rougue Federation ship operating with impunity in their territory, along with a couple of other references in that episode that made it pretty clear they were at a technological disadvantage to the Federation. Only later when they were made the principal antagonists for DS9 did they get an upgrade to a major superpower, at which point a number of the introductory elements from "The Wounded" made less sense.

 

[Rahul]

To be fair, the Cardassians weren't much of a threat when they were originally introduced in "The Wounded", which featured a single rougue Federation ship operating with impunity in their territory, along with a couple of other references in that episode that made it pretty clear they were at a technological disadvantage to the Federation. Only later when they were made the principal antagonists for DS9 did they get an upgrade to a major superpower, at which point a number of the introductory elements from "The Wounded" made less sense.

Weren't they also in DS9 one of the "lesser" powers? Their menace came from being the (former) oppressors of Bajor, the shows primary setting. And a fleet of their ships more powerful than a space station left by themselves. So more of a threat to our heroes & setting, not necessary galaxy-wide.
Then on the Klingon/Cardassian war they got their asses kicked pretty badly.
Really "fearsome" they then became only by allying with the Dominion, becoming their foothold in the quadrant, and massively pushed by their presence.
But I never had the impression they were suddenly depicted as a major power on their own - hell, even when they switched sides in the finale, it barely even made a difference expect a moral one.
Or did I miss something? (Not totally sure - it's a looong time ago I watched it)

 

[Ssosmcin]

TOS: worse. Remember, Roddenberry was fully involved with Trek even when Gene Coon became the line producer. Roddenberry was rewriting and helping to keep the series on course. When he stepped away and Coon was fully in charge, we got more all out comedies. Roddenberry came back and reportedly hated it. Coon left and was replaced by John Meredyth Lucas and the show was still good. The Ultimate Computer was as fine as anything done on Coon's watch.

When Roddenberry truly stepped away from TOS, we got what we saw in the latter portion of the third season.

So the original series needed Gene Roddenberry as a fully involved producer and creative force.

Somewhere between 1969 and 1979, he smoked his own fan worship and lost his mind. THAT Gene Roddenberry wasn't good for Star Trek. I loved TMP, but the show became a franchise because of Harve Bennett, Nick Meyer, Rick Berman and Michael Piller.

However, every IP that no longer has any input from the original creative mind eventually spins off into a vortex of different viewpoints and styles. It happened with Star Wars and Mission: Impossible, it's happening with Star Trek.

For me, Star Trek was at its best when Roddenberry was either still alive or his passing was recent enough and sad enough for the showrunners who actually knew the man to really want to stay close to what they thought he'd approve of. I adore the pre-Gene Coon episodes of the original series, because they were darker, more "sci-fi" and harder edged. My favorite era has Gene Roddenberry fully involved, if not the primary showrunner.

 

[Eckauskas]

For me, Star Trek was at its best when Roddenberry was either still alive or his passing was recent enough and sad enough for the showrunners who actually knew the man to really want to stay close to what they thought he'd approve of. I adore the pre-Gene Coon episodes of the original series, because they were darker, more "sci-fi" and harder edged. My favorite era has Gene Roddenberry fully involved, if not the primary showrunner.

This is why I voted 'worse'. Even though DS9 and Voyager came after his passing, they still felt true to what he was trying to put out. I don't think you can say the same thing about the Kelvin movies or anything post-revival.

Star Trek, for me, was at its best when it's about a collection of characters exploring the galaxy with new stories being told in every episode. I've never been a fan or a season long story arc that takes up the whole story. This is probably why LD is my favourite show post-2017. Strange New Worlds S1 was great because it felt like it was a return to the days of shenanigans in space without the need for the ensemble fighting different demons or traumas within. S2 not so much.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Yes.

Not "yes to the immediately previous response."

Yes to the original question.

Better because, for all his genius, for all his vision, for all his optimism, The Great Bird was deeply flawed.

Not as well (I wouldn't say "worse") because for all his flaws, for all his tendency to think with his genitals, for all his failure to see that having a many diverse ST series would be far better than having TNG go on forever with only evolutionary changes, ST was undeniably his creation, and has strayed in several wrong directions at various times, under people who didn't understand what ST is all about.

 

[fireproof78]

I've debated back and forth on my answer. And it still comes down to "It's complicated." Deep Space Nine shows that one can stray away from the vision put forth in The Next Generation and still have a positive story and outcome.

But, Roddenberry is also deeply flawed, and so is his vision. As one commentator put it, "Paradise protests too much." Star Trek was at its best when it looked at all aspects of humanity, the good and the bad. Kirk presented it well, as did Sisko, rather than the elitist view.

I believe that ongoing Trek productions capture different facets of the ideas of Trek, but doesn't always hit every single one the way TOS did.

 

[Dryson]

I think Trek would be better if stories were written about the lives of characters in the movie who were not main characters but played a vital role.

A story about Commander Shelby for example, would be made into a series of T.V. shows that lead up to her joining Starfleet and her early career in Starfleet.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Trek would be better if stories were written about the lives of characters in the movie who were not main characters but played a vital role.

A story about Commander Shelby for example, would be made into a series of T.V. shows that lead up to her joining Starfleet and her early career in Starfleet.

Yes, but what would Gene Roddenberry do?

 

[137th Gebirg]

Snort a line and diddle his secretary.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Judging from past experiences, he'd be more concerned with who he'd do as opposed to what.

 

[Dee1891]

I hate to say this, but the franchise was better - for a good number of years - without Roddenberry.

 

[Frontis]

Strange question because Roddenberry IS Star Trek, he invented Star Trek, without him there would be no Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Strange question because Roddenberry IS Star Trek, he invented Star Trek, without him there would be no Star Trek.

Doesn't make what Trek became solely his product. If Roddenberry were in charge, we would not have gotten TWOK, TUC, FIRST CONTACT, or possibly even the Borg.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Truth

 

[90sTrekGuy]

There are people who are good at coming up with ideas and there are people who are good at taking those ideas and running with them. Roddenberry was the former. But it was folk like Rick Berman, Michael Pillar, Ira Steven Behr, Jeri Taylor, Brannon Braga who took a great concept and made it a workable model. To go back a little further than that however, The Motion Picture was Roddenberry's idea of a Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan was what they came up with with GR in a reduced role. Which is the better film?

 

[Lord Garth]

Even though DS9 and Voyager came after his passing, they still felt true to what he was trying to put out.

This is NOT a knock on DS9, I like DS9, but no. DS9 is NOT what Gene Roddenberry would've wanted. Especially in the later seasons. He objected to the TOS Movies being too militaristic. To the point where he contacted his lawyer and wanted 15 minutes of the more militaristic moments of TUC to be cut. He died two days later. But the point is: there's no way he would've been onboard with the Dominion War. None.

You like DS9 too, so you want it to be something Gene would've approved of, but it isn't. If you like any TOS Movie after TMP, you like something Gene didn't approve of. If you like DS9, you like something Gene wouldn't have approved of.

.
.
.

Of course, his lack of approval of the TOS Movies is gutted by consenting to be credited as an Executive Consultant. If he was really serious about stopping Star Trek from going in a direction he didn't like, he would've refused to be an Executive Consultant and it would've gone to court, so Paramount could fight for the ability to make Star Trek without him being involved. I think there was a clause in his contract that he couldn't be let go completely, so he could've used that as leverage if he wanted. But then that would've made him look like The Bad Guy to a lot of Trekkies in the '80s, since he spent the '70s telling them he wanted to bring Star Trek back and now he'd be the one holding things up.

 

[Lord Garth]

As far as VOY, I think he would've approved of most of it. Excluding episodes like "Equinox".

Rick Berman, Michael Piller, and Jeri Taylor would've had to hold his hand and help him through his misogyny -- which grew worse over time -- but they could've gotten Captain Janeway past him as the series lead.

He would've been all about the Voyager crew looking so much superior and more enlightened than the hard-headed aliens they kept running into in the Delta Quadrant.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

Heck, the whole point of "The Enemy Within" is that Kirk needs both his positive and negative qualities to be whole. He can't function effectively without his baser primitive instincts, harnessed by his more cerebral side.

They couldn't just flush the Bad Kirk out the airlock.

 

[Frontis]

This discussion still confuses me. Because without Roddenberry there would be no Star Trek, so there would be no BBS Forum and this discussion would never happen.
My favorite Treks are TOS and DS9. But without Roddenberry there also would be no DS9 even when it was created after his death.. Maybe people would have created similar sience fiction shows, idk.
Anyway, I don't see much sense in this discussion. No matter if you like Roddenberry or not.
Or do I get something wrong?

 

[fireproof78]

This discussion still confuses me. Because without Roddenberry there would be no Star Trek, so there would be no BBS Forum and this discussion would never happen.
My favorite Treks are TOS and DS9. But without Roddenberry there also would be no DS9 even when it was created after his death.. Maybe people would have created similar sience fiction shows, idk.
Anyway, I don't see much sense in this discussion. No matter if you like Roddenberry or not.
Or do I get something wrong?

More a matter of what was the benefit of his influence going forward. Obviously, there would be no Trek without Roddenberry, but he wasn't alone in making Star Trek happen. The Cage was considered less a success, but the studio was willing to try again and we got another shot.

But, even in TOS, moving from Season 1 to 3 there is less Roddenberry and more other producers. In TNG, Season 1 and 2 are famously heavily influenced by Roddenberry and his view of an evolved humanity, like no mourning by humans as reported by Michael Piller and his work on "The Bonding."

So, again, it's a question of influence in different stories and ideas, not the concept of Trek.