What would Roddenberry want in XI??

[SonicRanger]

Manny Coto did not write ENT season 4, but most everyone will agree that once he took creative control of the show and it's direction it improved greatly.

Not all of us.

 

[trekkerguy]

Manny Coto did not write ENT season 4, but most everyone will agree that once he took creative control of the show and it's direction it improved greatly.

Not all of us.

"most everyone"

The vast minority is not included in that statement.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

They were trying, but not always succeeding, to get things past network censors with westerns and cop shows. It was GR's frustration trying to get things through, on shows like "Have Gun, Will Travel" and "The Lieutenant", that led him to realize that SF often got a free ride re controversial issues, because the events were happening to polka-dotted people on another planet, not humans.

True SF used to get a pass because its seen in a different light than contempory dramas. Some see it as "kiddie fare" as well. Westerns had a similar "stigma" until the adult Western came into vogue. You could make a commentary about racial intolerance or a mixed marriage if it was a white man and an Indian woman, but they drew the line at black and white.

 

[Cheapjack]

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.

The thing is though, M'sharak, is that other people have said that Star Trek is a morality,(I'll pause while you barf), show. Bob Justman says so in the TNG DVD commentary set. He was a producer, on the TNG and TOS. Surely his opinion counts for something? I know some people here think that theirs is far more authorative. Harve Bennet has, Nick meyer has. It says so on wikipedia. I've even offered to give you the moral for every episode, and you can't say fairer than that.

Oh well. At least you all seem to be accepting that now.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Yeah remember out of all the TOS episodes Gene Roddenberry only wrote 11.

yea but he rewrote alot. How many eps did coon write ? Coon also my least favorite one wink of an eye and GR wrote my favorites like Return of the Archons and Savage Curtain.

I belive Coon wrote 12, and Boris Sobleman wrote Return of the Archons The teleplay there's no crediting of Gene Roddenberry on that episode and he only co worte Savage curtain, with Aurthur Heinemann.

DC fontana wrote Ten episodes.

So out of seventy episodes Gene wrote 11, DC wrote 10, Coon wrote 12 thats 33 of seventy episodes the rest were written by people like Ellison Wilbur (Who co wrote space seed with coon.) I think if you look back at most of Gene Roddenberry's work, his other shows that he tried Star Trek was so successful because of the whole pool of writers and yes while gene wrote many of the stories and did re-writes on others I doubt he did major changes in the story structure. I'm just saying there are people who did as much work ash he did, he's the creator but he didn't do it alone, (which BTW is one of the over reaching arcs of Star Trek is that no one person can do it all by themselves, or they would have always focused on just Kirk, they didn't but that's an unrelated aside)

And the model works, I think it was supposed to be that way. Get good writers, turn 'em loose, and see what pops up. unless it's a continuing storyline, I just don't see why having one guy do the writing is better than having 100.


can we stop the "great bird must approve" thing now please?

 

[trekkerguy]

can we stop the "great bird must approve" thing now please?

 

[SonicRanger]

... I've even offered to give you the moral for every episode...

I accept your offer -- please provide this.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Not every episode had a deep and moving moral message, but they generally had a premise that was at least a little bit thought provoking.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

The thing is though, M'sharak, is that other people have said that Star Trek is a morality,(I'll pause while you barf), show. Bob Justman says so in the TNG DVD commentary set. He was a producer, on the TNG and TOS. Surely his opinion counts for something? I know some people here think that theirs is far more authorative. Harve Bennet has, Nick meyer has. It says so on wikipedia. I've even offered to give you the moral for every episode, and you can't say fairer than that.

Here's the thing, though: no one here has denied that Star Trek stories were often morality plays. They were, and we all know that; we've known it for years. What has been said by many people above is that morality plays aren't the only thing going on in Star Trek stories (nor even necessarily always the most important thing) and that the morality plays we did get were not particularly unique for that time and, further, that they were often very simplistic and not the deep, profound and completely original moral lessons sprung from the genius mind of master philosopher Gene Roddenberry which you seem to have been trying to convince us they were.

What has been happening is that you've consistently misread what other people have written here, attempted to twist meanings around and tell them they've actually said something very different. (That little "I'll pause while you barf" trick which I've emphasized in your post is only one such example and has been used often enough that it's now bordering on trolling. I'd recommend you stop that.)

Misunderstand what others have said if you insist -- there's very little I can do to prevent you from doing that -- but don't try to put words (or barf, as the case may be) in their mouths. That's dishonest, at the very least, and a poor way to carry on a discussion. If carried to extremes, as you are again in danger of doing, it could result in a warning.

Discuss, offer opinions, ask questions -- all of these are fine, and are the reason boards like this exist -- but knock off the personal digs, knock off the baiting, and try actually listening to and understanding what people are really saying, as opposed to trying to force their words into a preconceived (Aha! Gotcha!) slot of your own where they don't fit very well. If you can do this, you will probably enjoy the discussion more (as will everyone else participating) and you could actually learn something which you hadn't known before.

If you can't, then this thread will probably be closed very shortly. The ball's in your court.

Oh well. At least you all seem to be accepting that now.

I'm not sure what we are all accepting now which we weren't all accepting already. Might want to check your premise, there -- sometimes premises can be faulty, which may lead to all sorts of confusion down the line (much as has been happening in this thread and in your previous attempts.)

 

[Sharr Khan]

Didn't read the whole thread, sure someone said this already: GR, would want boobs and scantily clad starlets [check!] JJ's paying attention ; )


Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What has been said by many people above is that morality plays aren't the only thing going on in Star Trek stories (nor even necessarily always the most important thing) and that the morality plays we did get were not particularly unique for that time and, further, that they were often very simplistic and not the deep, profound and completely original moral lessons sprung from the genius mind of master philosopher Gene Roddenberry which you seem to have been trying to convince us they were.

Exactly.

"Star Trek" has not continued for forty years because tens of millions of people are deeply impressed by its simplistic morality plays. That much is certain.

What has been happening is that you've consistently misread what other people have written here, attempted to twist meanings around and tell them they've actually said something very different.

Also true.

 

[xortex]

Great art's messages are not philosophical, they are metaphysical. They should be exciting and fun too. GR was not a philosopher. He was a humanitarian and a thinker like Serling was.

 

[Gepard]

He was an ex-cop who had a drinking problem and a zillion ideas for TV shows, only one of which ever got made. I love trek as much as the next guy, but let's not over-romanticize Roddenberry's nature here.

 

[xortex]

He was an ex-cop who had a drinking problem and a zillion ideas for TV shows, only one of which ever got made. I love trek as much as the next guy, but let's not over-romanticize Roddenberry's nature here.

Roddenberry's nature is at the heart of this thread. It can't be romanticized enough unless you mean it could never be duplicated or reached, then I agree. His writing was powerful, deep, thought provoking, altruistic and compassionate but his genius was in encompassing it all and perfecting and glorifying it.

 

[xortex]

And no, he didn't write and direct and star in all the episodes.

 

[Cheapjack]

...

The thing is though, M'sharak, is that other people have said that Star Trek is a morality,(I'll pause while you barf), show. Bob Justman says so in the TNG DVD commentary set. He was a producer, on the TNG and TOS. Surely his opinion counts for something? I know some people here think that theirs is far more authorative. Harve Bennet has, Nick meyer has. It says so on wikipedia. I've even offered to give you the moral for every episode, and you can't say fairer than that.

Here's the thing, though: no one here has denied that Star Trek stories were often morality plays. They were, and we all know that; we've known it for years. What has been said by many people above is that morality plays aren't the only thing going on in Star Trek stories (nor even necessarily always the most important thing) and that the morality plays we did get were not particularly unique for that time and, further, that they were often very simplistic and not the deep, profound and completely original moral lessons sprung from the genius mind of master philosopher Gene Roddenberry which you seem to have been trying to convince us they were.

What has been happening is that you've consistently misread what other people have written here, attempted to twist meanings around and tell them they've actually said something very different. (That little "I'll pause while you barf" trick which I've emphasized in your post is only one such example and has been used often enough that it's now bordering on trolling. I'd recommend you stop that.)

Misunderstand what others have said if you insist -- there's very little I can do to prevent you from doing that -- but don't try to put words (or barf, as the case may be) in their mouths. That's dishonest, at the very least, and a poor way to carry on a discussion. If carried to extremes, as you are again in danger of doing, it could result in a warning.

Discuss, offer opinions, ask questions -- all of these are fine, and are the reason boards like this exist -- but knock off the personal digs, knock off the baiting, and try actually listening to and understanding what people are really saying, as opposed to trying to force their words into a preconceived (Aha! Gotcha!) slot of your own where they don't fit very well. If you can do this, you will probably enjoy the discussion more (as will everyone else participating) and you could actually learn something which you hadn't known before.

If you can't, then this thread will probably be closed very shortly. The ball's in your court.

Oh well. At least you all seem to be accepting that now.

I'm not sure what we are all accepting now which we weren't all accepting already. Might want to check your premise, there -- sometimes premises can be faulty, which may lead to all sorts of confusion down the line (much as has been happening in this thread and in your previous attempts.)

Starship Polaris:

'Add to that the also above-referenced fact that Roddenberry had no fewer materialistic, self-interested aspects to his nature than any other man and seemed to have as many half-baked, flaky ideas as great ones. Anyone who thinks that they know or can prove what Roddenberry would have thought of any of the Trek projects since his passing is engaging in intellectual masturbation'.

And you say I bait people? I'm not half as steamrollering as some. 'Sunday School morality' was very hurtful to me when, as I've said, ST has kept me going when I've felt like giving up. I've given quotes from people who have made ST and pointed out examples myself. I can't do, and have done little more than that. I'm sorry if you took offence at the barf quote, but I wasn't the one who first used it. In fact, I think it was Polaris on another thread. I THINK I may have learned something from this forum - I THINK some just watch it for the action adventure, I'm not sure. My quote from Stephen Whitfield's book may have had some similar effect in the reverse direction.

The point of the original post was to point out that if you remake anything, you have to reference the original creator. Bennet did, Berman did. I'm not so sure, given what JJ has said, that he's taken the philosophy bit onboard. All he has said just points to action-adventure, which is only 50% of what ST is.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The point of the original post was to point out that if you remake anything, you have to reference the original creator. Bennet did, Berman did.

But Roddenberry was never convinced that Bennett got it, not until maybe ST IV with the whales theme, which is why Majel Barrett was back as Chapel.

I'm not so sure, given what JJ has said, that he's taken the philosophy bit onboard. All he has said just points to action-adventure, which is only 50% of what ST is.

Huh? Have you seen "Lost"? You can't dismiss "Lost" as action/adventure. I cannot imagine JJ delighting in having multiple layers in every episode of "Lost" but choosing only an action/adventure thread for "Star Trek".

Both "Star Trek" and "Lost" seem to owe much, writing-wise and directing-wise, to Rod Serling's "The Twilight Zone", and I think JJ is a great fit for ST.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Here's one for you:

If his name is going to be on it, what would Gene Roddenberry like to see in STII?

A new Star Trek story, with new characters, set in the 24th/25th century epoch-always looking forward, not backward.

Lots of merchandising opportunities.

You don't begrudge George Lucas that, why would you do that to Gene?

Be serious.

What would the 'Great Bird of The Galaxy', the Creator, want?

Would he be happy with just action adventure?

Why not both?

Who gives a crap? He's dead.

Obviously, you do, since you commented here.

Here's one for you:

If his name is going to be on it, what would Gene Roddenberry like to see in STII?

I have to question why were even considering...this question. We cannot pick Gene's brain from our earthly vantage point. More to that point, Gene's influence, his light if you will, went out of Star Trek decades ago, and we muddled through the Bennet/Myers and the Berman/Braga dynasties and finally ended up in this situation.

With all do respect to the thread MC, this question is quite moot.

Guess what, buddy: Gene chose Berman/Braga to oversee the franchise, and for the most part, it went well. That it failed was due to what is mentioned in my sig, and a lot of other factors that you and others on this board chose to ignore.

^^^

Well said, Dennis.

We are, after all, talking about the GR who was pushing for "The Adventures of Lwaxana Troi" while Berman and Piller were proposing "Deep Space Nine."

Wow, so he wanted to do something radically different from what had been done before? What a crime that is! No wonder post-TOS Trek has had problems, not the least of which is pleasing fickle fans. Ever checked out this fan show?

I have to question why were even considering...this question.

To shoot the breeze about Star Trek -- isn't that the point of the entire forum, let alone this subforum about the film?

I expect that if asked Gene would just heap praise upon Abrahams and the crew and say what a pleasure it was to work with Spock again and how he hoped the best for a re-start of the franchise.

I cannot think he would necessarily want to see a retread of his original work when you could easily have done something new with the property along the same lines with different characters.

Regarding the last paragraph: Just my thoughts exactly.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

...

...

Starship Polaris:

'Add to that the also above-referenced fact that Roddenberry had no fewer materialistic, self-interested aspects to his nature than any other man and seemed to have as many half-baked, flaky ideas as great ones. Anyone who thinks that they know or can prove what Roddenberry would have thought of any of the Trek projects since his passing is engaging in intellectual masturbation'.

And you say I bait people? I'm not half as steamrollering as some.

I think that instead of cherry-picking, you should take what you've excerpted above in the context of Starship Polaris' complete post; I don't think it's either baiting or steamrollering.

'Sunday School morality' was very hurtful to me when, as I've said, ST has kept me going when I've felt like giving up.

If Star Trek has been a help to you in difficult times, then that's a good thing, but I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect that everyone's experience has mirrored your own. Each personal perspective is necessarily different.

If the term "Sunday-school morality" was so distressing to you that you feel it necessary to dredge that up again and again from a post made over a month ago in a completely different thread, then I suggest again that you consider it in the context in which it was written and further that fixating on Starship Polaris all this time on the basis a couple of old posts may not be the most productive use of your time here.

I've given quotes from people who have made ST and pointed out examples myself. I can't do, and have done little more than that.

You have indeed pointed out quotes and inferred meaning from them with which others have not always agreed, and then made snarky little digs implying that those who didn't see things the same way as you could not therefore be real fans of Star Trek.

I'm sorry if you took offence at the barf quote, but I wasn't the one who first used it. In fact, I think it was Polaris on another thread.

I didn't say I took offense; I said that the repeated use of it in the way that you have bordered on trolling (meaning that you really ought to knock it off... now.) As for what Polaris said, I think you really do need to take off the blinders and read things in context; read again the post (from three weeks ago!) and note that he was talking about a barf emoticon in response to something specific said, not by you, but by another poster. That you've made such a colossal big deal out of it for as long as you have and twisted it so far out of shape as to be nearly unrecognizable is a pretty clear indication of overreaction on your part.

I THINK I may have learned something from this forum - I THINK some just watch it for the action adventure, I'm not sure. My quote from Stephen Whitfield's book may have had some similar effect in the reverse direction.

The point of the original post was to point out that if you remake anything, you have to reference the original creator. Bennet did, Berman did. I'm not so sure, given what JJ has said, that he's taken the philosophy bit onboard. All he has said just points to action-adventure, which is only 50% of what ST is.

I think, in conclusion, that you should keep in mind more securely what your original intent was and stick to that, rather than allowing yourself to get sidetracked on irrelevant issues or bogged down in details which review shows to be more misunderstanding on your part than anything else. Remember what you intended to discuss, stay focused on that, and realize that others are not required to agree with you and may express opinions of their own (with which you are also not required to agree) and I think that the discussion will go better for you. Don't take personally what is not intended to be taken that way; sometimes a different opinion is just a different opinion.


Now: is there anything further to be discussed here... ON-topic?

 

[Gepard]

Roddenberry's nature is at the heart of this thread. It can't be romanticized enough unless you mean it could never be duplicated or reached, then I agree. His writing was powerful, deep, thought provoking, altruistic and compassionate but his genius was in encompassing it all and perfecting and glorifying it.

...

......You're Stephen Colbert, aren't you?