What would Roddenberry want in XI??

[Therin of Andor]

I heard her tell this story and I thought it was supposed to be a joke.

Mostly it was. When Marina Sirtis came onstage, she told Majel it had better have room for daughter Deanna and her pet, Mr Woof. And wacky Uncle Data.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Am I the only one who remembers that abortion of a spinoff involving Gary Seven and that shape-shifting chick in the catsuit?

 

[Captain Robert April]

If you're remembering it as a full-fledged spinoff, yeah, it's just you.

"Assignment: Earth" was a pilot for a spinoff, but the network didn't bite.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Am I the only one who remembers that abortion of a spinoff involving Gary Seven and that shape-shifting chick in the catsuit?

John Byrne just did it as a comic mini-series for IDW. Now also an omnibus reprint trade paperback.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Am I the only one who remembers that abortion of a spinoff involving Gary Seven and that shape-shifting chick in the catsuit?

It was a real cat.

 

[Cheapjack]

...In what way was ST innovative? In what way wasn't it? The format, the stories, the writers, the first really successful fairly hard SF show, the most succesful to date.

But the stories being told were simply the same stories TV was telling for 10 years prior, and in movies and books before that -- only the setting happened to be different.

Even the episodes ideas that came from sci-fi writers (such as COTEOF) could be transferred to other genres besides sci-fi. The core idea of that episode that "a main character would need to allow an innocent/love interest to die for the greater good" is not an idea exclusive to Star Trek. (...and no, I would not call that a "moral message", it's simply a storyline).

Don't confuse the setting with the storytelling. The style of storytelling in Star Trek is in the classic TV-style, which was being done long before Star Trek was conceived.

Here's another -- WNMHGB. That episode is about "an average man who becomes so powerful that he begins to play God, with tragic consequences." That story had been told dozens of times in the past, and mostly not within the sci-fi genre (i.e., no space travel or sci fi in general is required to tell that story). Don't get me wrong -- Star Trek told that particular story extremely well, but they were not the innovators of that story.

And before we get caught up again in the (hopefully avoidable) discussion of "Star Trek is about morals", let me just say this...the classic fiction storylines that have been told for thousands of years may have come from our morals, but they are no longer about our morals -- they are simply about human nature.

Stephen Whitfield: 'The Making of Star Trek'. - 1968

'He decided to make it appear on the outside to be nothing more than acceptable,safe, adventure stuff. But, like a Trojan horse, the series would contain a few surprises. Roddenberry was determeined to break through television's censhorship barrier and do tales about meaningful things. He was sure the television audience was not the collection of nitwits that networks believed it to be. By using science fiction yarns on far off planets, he was certain he could disguise the fact he was talking about politics,sex,economics, the stupidity of war and half a hundred other subjects usually prohibited on television.'

Just another opinion, of course. but the one that was said by the man who set it up and fought with the networks to get it on the air, not just the opinion of a load of people on a forum forty years later.

 

[Qonos]

...In what way was ST innovative? In what way wasn't it? The format, the stories, the writers, the first really successful fairly hard SF show, the most succesful to date.

But the stories being told were simply the same stories TV was telling for 10 years prior, and in movies and books before that -- only the setting happened to be different.

Even the episodes ideas that came from sci-fi writers (such as COTEOF) could be transferred to other genres besides sci-fi. The core idea of that episode that "a main character would need to allow an innocent/love interest to die for the greater good" is not an idea exclusive to Star Trek. (...and no, I would not call that a "moral message", it's simply a storyline).

Don't confuse the setting with the storytelling. The style of storytelling in Star Trek is in the classic TV-style, which was being done long before Star Trek was conceived.

Here's another -- WNMHGB. That episode is about "an average man who becomes so powerful that he begins to play God, with tragic consequences." That story had been told dozens of times in the past, and mostly not within the sci-fi genre (i.e., no space travel or sci fi in general is required to tell that story). Don't get me wrong -- Star Trek told that particular story extremely well, but they were not the innovators of that story.

And before we get caught up again in the (hopefully avoidable) discussion of "Star Trek is about morals", let me just say this...the classic fiction storylines that have been told for thousands of years may have come from our morals, but they are no longer about our morals -- they are simply about human nature.

Stephen Whitfield: 'The Making of Star Trek'. - 1968

'He decided to make it appear on the outside to be nothing more than acceptable,safe, adventure stuff. But, like a Trojan horse, the series would contain a few surprises. Roddenberry was determeined to break through television's censhorship barrier and do tales about meaningful things. He was sure the television audience was not the collection of nitwits that networks believed it to be. By using science fiction yarns on far off planets, he was certain he could disguise the fact he was talking about politics,sex,economics, the stupidity of war and half a hundred other subjects usually prohibited on television.'

Just another opinion, of course. but the one that was said by the man who set it up and fought with the networks to get it on the air, not just the opinion of a load of people on a forum forty years later.

Actually it's a second hand retelling of what someone heard about someone else about something else.

In court that's called Hearsay and it's inadmissable mister Dardin.

 

[number6]

But the stories being told were simply the same stories TV was telling for 10 years prior, and in movies and books before that -- only the setting happened to be different.

Even the episodes ideas that came from sci-fi writers (such as COTEOF) could be transferred to other genres besides sci-fi. The core idea of that episode that "a main character would need to allow an innocent/love interest to die for the greater good" is not an idea exclusive to Star Trek. (...and no, I would not call that a "moral message", it's simply a storyline).

Don't confuse the setting with the storytelling. The style of storytelling in Star Trek is in the classic TV-style, which was being done long before Star Trek was conceived.

Here's another -- WNMHGB. That episode is about "an average man who becomes so powerful that he begins to play God, with tragic consequences." That story had been told dozens of times in the past, and mostly not within the sci-fi genre (i.e., no space travel or sci fi in general is required to tell that story). Don't get me wrong -- Star Trek told that particular story extremely well, but they were not the innovators of that story.

And before we get caught up again in the (hopefully avoidable) discussion of "Star Trek is about morals", let me just say this...the classic fiction storylines that have been told for thousands of years may have come from our morals, but they are no longer about our morals -- they are simply about human nature.

Stephen Whitfield: 'The Making of Star Trek'. - 1968

'He decided to make it appear on the outside to be nothing more than acceptable,safe, adventure stuff. But, like a Trojan horse, the series would contain a few surprises. Roddenberry was determeined to break through television's censhorship barrier and do tales about meaningful things. He was sure the television audience was not the collection of nitwits that networks believed it to be. By using science fiction yarns on far off planets, he was certain he could disguise the fact he was talking about politics,sex,economics, the stupidity of war and half a hundred other subjects usually prohibited on television.'

Just another opinion, of course. but the one that was said by the man who set it up and fought with the networks to get it on the air, not just the opinion of a load of people on a forum forty years later.

Actually it's a second hand retelling of what someone heard about someone else about something else.

In court that's called Hearsay and it's inadmissable mister Dardin.

No. It's a quote taken from a book he co wrote in 1968. Whitfield was on set and had access to every aspect of the show, including all the production people, blueprints, soundstages, etc. and did extensive interviews with GR which are quoted all over the place. Even if you want to call it "hearsay" it's as close to the actual sourse as you're ever going to get.

 

[SonicRanger]

[No. It's a quote taken from a book he co wrote in 1968. Whitfield was on set and had access to every aspect of the show, including all the production people, blueprints, soundstages, etc. and did extensive interviews with GR which are quoted all over the place. Even if you want to call it "hearsay" it's as close to the actual sourse as you're ever going to get.

Whitfield's TMoST has the added advantage of being written during the production of TOS (the episode list at the end only goes through the second season), not during the 1970s or 1980s, when GR built up more of a "mythology" around ST, his "vision" and philosophy, etc (much like Nichols' stories about MLK increased in flamboyancy over time too) and he was treated like a virtual demigod or prophet by Trekkies.

 

[number6]

[No. It's a quote taken from a book he co wrote in 1968. Whitfield was on set and had access to every aspect of the show, including all the production people, blueprints, soundstages, etc. and did extensive interviews with GR which are quoted all over the place. Even if you want to call it "hearsay" it's as close to the actual sourse as you're ever going to get.

Whitfield's TMoST has the added advantage of being written during the production of TOS (the episode list at the end only goes through the second season), not during the 1970s or 1980s, when GR built up more of a "mythology" around ST, his "vision" and philosophy, etc (much like Nichols' stories about MLK increased in flamboyancy over time too) and he was treated like a virtual demigod or prophet by Trekkies.

Too true.. At that time there was no guarantee of a third season.

There is no better source for pre-hype TOS.

 

[M'Sharak]

[No. It's a quote taken from a book he co wrote in 1968. Whitfield was on set and had access to every aspect of the show, including all the production people, blueprints, soundstages, etc. and did extensive interviews with GR which are quoted all over the place. Even if you want to call it "hearsay" it's as close to the actual sourse as you're ever going to get.

Whitfield's TMoST has the added advantage of being written during the production of TOS (the episode list at the end only goes through the second season), not during the 1970s or 1980s, when GR built up more of a "mythology" around ST, his "vision" and philosophy, etc (much like Nichols' stories about MLK increased in flamboyancy over time too) and he was treated like a virtual demigod or prophet by Trekkies.

Too true.. At that time there was no guarantee of a third season.

There is no better source for pre-hype TOS.

That's true, as far as it goes, but I'll confess to becoming a little weary of having Whitfield's book waved at us again and again as The Only True Scriptural Evidence of Why We're All Wrong about Morality, Altruism, Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ and What Star Trek Really Means, as if none of us had sufficient intelligence to work a few things out for ourselves without it. One thing Star Trek was never about was unquestioningly believing what we were told; to swallow that is to negate the need for exploration of any kind, and that doesn't sound like the Star Trek I remember.

 

[number6]

Whitfield's TMoST has the added advantage of being written during the production of TOS (the episode list at the end only goes through the second season), not during the 1970s or 1980s, when GR built up more of a "mythology" around ST, his "vision" and philosophy, etc (much like Nichols' stories about MLK increased in flamboyancy over time too) and he was treated like a virtual demigod or prophet by Trekkies.

Too true.. At that time there was no guarantee of a third season.

There is no better source for pre-hype TOS.

That's true, as far as it goes, but I'll confess to becoming a little weary of having Whitfield's book waved at us again and again as The Only True Scriptural Evidence of Why We're All Wrong about Morality, Altruism, Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ and What Star Trek Really Means, as if none of us had sufficient intelligence to work a few things out for ourselves without it. One thing Star Trek was never about was unquestioningly believing what we were told; to swallow that is to negate the need for exploration of any kind, and that doesn't sound like the Star Trek I remember.

While that's mostly true, I give TMoST a little more weight in terms of how Star Trek was percieved in the 60s before it was blown up into the "legend" status that has surrounded it from the mid 70s onward. The information about the develoment of the series and its evolution over its early years is second only to the Solow/Justman book that came along a few years back. It's pretty much as close to the unvarnished truth as we'll ever get and certainly the closest to the "horse's mouth" of those so closely involved.

 

[SonicRanger]

That's true, as far as it goes, but I'll confess to becoming a little weary of having Whitfield's book waved at us again and again as The Only True Scriptural Evidence of Why We're All Wrong about Morality, Altruism, Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ and What Star Trek Really Means, as if none of us had sufficient intelligence to work a few things out for ourselves without it...

Oh, of course. Even back in 1968, Whitfield's TMoST was still, to some degree, propaganda that we should take with a grain of salt, not at face value... but at least it is 1968 propaganda, not 1978 or 1988.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's true, as far as it goes, but I'll confess to becoming a little weary of having Whitfield's book waved at us again and again as The Only True Scriptural Evidence of Why We're All Wrong about Morality, Altruism, Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ and What Star Trek Really Means, as if none of us had sufficient intelligence to work a few things out for ourselves without it...

Yeah, except that I've read and understood the book, watched and understood the TV series - and I've noticed that those Only True Opinions Of What It Really Means just ain't so.

Whitfield's book is, to a great extent, the way Roddenberry wanted to be seen. There is bias and half-truth throughout it wherever it strays from production memos and images and schedules.

For example, it's the earliest source of GR's claim that NBC rejected "The Cage" for being "too cerebral." In fact, testimony from people like Herb Solow - who actually dealt with the network, where Roddenberry as a producer working for Solow at Desilu did not - is at variance with that claim and many others.

 

[M'Sharak]

While that's mostly true, I give TMoST a little more weight in terms of how Star Trek was percieved in the 60s before it was blown up into the "legend" status that has surrounded it from the mid 70s onward. The information about the develoment of the series and its evolution over its early years is second only to the Solow/Justman book that came along a few years back. It's pretty much as close to the unvarnished truth as we'll ever get and certainly the closest to the "horse's mouth" of those so closely involved.

Sure, and I read both that and Gerrold's book about the making of "The Trouble with Tribbles" many times. I think I still have the original worn-out paperbacks around here somewhere.

As documents of the show in production, they're invaluable; as Holy Scripture, in the sense that the OP has been inclined to use it in this and previous threads to tell us what it all means and how we should think if we are to be deemed True Fans, not so much. And, more importantly, they tell us pretty much nothing of what Gene Roddenberry would have wanted this film to be in 2009; to insist otherwise is, well, not very realistic.

 

[number6]

While that's mostly true, I give TMoST a little more weight in terms of how Star Trek was percieved in the 60s before it was blown up into the "legend" status that has surrounded it from the mid 70s onward. The information about the develoment of the series and its evolution over its early years is second only to the Solow/Justman book that came along a few years back. It's pretty much as close to the unvarnished truth as we'll ever get and certainly the closest to the "horse's mouth" of those so closely involved.

Sure, and I read both that and Gerrold's book about the making of "The Trouble with Tribbles" many times. I think I still have the original worn-out paperbacks around here somewhere.

As documents of the show in production, they're invaluable; as Holy Scripture, in the sense that the OP has been inclined to use it in this and previous threads to tell us what it all means and how we should think if we are to be deemed True Fans, not so much. And, more importantly, they tell us pretty much nothing of what Gene Roddenberry would have wanted this film to be in 2009; to insist otherwise is, well, not very realistic.

It's also unrealistic to guage what GR would want in the here and now based on his feelings around the time of TNG, when he had bought lock stock and barrel into his own myth. In terms of the films, the studio would never let him have any real hands on control. After TMP he was relegatd to "Executive Consultant" and was essentially powerless to make any changes to the TOS films that followed. I would expect that to be the same in this case.

 

[M'Sharak]

It's also unralistic to guage what GR would want in the here and now based on his feelings around the time of TNG...

Yeah, I don't see any real point in doing that, either.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Like I said, it depends on which Gene Roddenberry we're trying to invoke here.

 

[number6]

Like I said, it depends on which Gene Roddenberry we're trying to invoke here.

As he (reportedly) said to Berman and Piller when they told GR about developing DS9, he would probably tell Abrams, "Go with God."

 

[Nerys Myk]

...In what way was ST innovative? In what way wasn't it? The format, the stories, the writers, the first really successful fairly hard SF show, the most succesful to date.

But the stories being told were simply the same stories TV was telling for 10 years prior, and in movies and books before that -- only the setting happened to be different.

Even the episodes ideas that came from sci-fi writers (such as COTEOF) could be transferred to other genres besides sci-fi. The core idea of that episode that "a main character would need to allow an innocent/love interest to die for the greater good" is not an idea exclusive to Star Trek. (...and no, I would not call that a "moral message", it's simply a storyline).

Don't confuse the setting with the storytelling. The style of storytelling in Star Trek is in the classic TV-style, which was being done long before Star Trek was conceived.

Here's another -- WNMHGB. That episode is about "an average man who becomes so powerful that he begins to play God, with tragic consequences." That story had been told dozens of times in the past, and mostly not within the sci-fi genre (i.e., no space travel or sci fi in general is required to tell that story). Don't get me wrong -- Star Trek told that particular story extremely well, but they were not the innovators of that story.

And before we get caught up again in the (hopefully avoidable) discussion of "Star Trek is about morals", let me just say this...the classic fiction storylines that have been told for thousands of years may have come from our morals, but they are no longer about our morals -- they are simply about human nature.

Stephen Whitfield: 'The Making of Star Trek'. - 1968

'He decided to make it appear on the outside to be nothing more than acceptable,safe, adventure stuff. But, like a Trojan horse, the series would contain a few surprises. Roddenberry was determeined to break through television's censhorship barrier and do tales about meaningful things. He was sure the television audience was not the collection of nitwits that networks believed it to be. By using science fiction yarns on far off planets, he was certain he could disguise the fact he was talking about politics,sex,economics, the stupidity of war and half a hundred other subjects usually prohibited on television.'

Just another opinion, of course. but the one that was said by the man who set it up and fought with the networks to get it on the air, not just the opinion of a load of people on a forum forty years later.

Thing is TV shows were already doing that. Some without the SF disguise. And in spite of Gene lofty goals, the stories being told were not all that different than those in the Westerns and Cops shows that preceded Star Trek.