I have never seen any interviews with D.C. Fontana that were published in the last ten-twenty years.
Does she not like to talk about Trek?
In all the history of the world, a riot has NEVER broken out at a Sci-Fi convention.
Alright, we've established that she does talk Star Trek. However, one must also realize that there is a lot more to her life than just this one show. I know as proud as I am about certain accomplishments in my life, at times I get tired of talking about them, too. Especially if I've been talking about them for 40 years.
I know I went to a lecture she gave at my university some years ago, and she gave the entire talk without mentioning Star Trek. Her talk was about screen writing, and it was very interesting and informative.
.
In all the history of the world, a riot has NEVER broken out at a Sci-Fi convention.
To be fair, in Philadelphia in 1976, I did see a drunken fistfight start over matter-antimatter cold intermix...
Me too.Has she seen the movie? I'd be curious to hear her take on it.
She recently did publicity for IDW's "Year 4" comics,
Please tell us which scenes in ST:XI and which stories/episodes from DC Fontana were used.for basically lifting a couple of her scenes for the movie
Please tell us which scenes in ST:XI and which stories/episodes from DC Fontana were used.for basically lifting a couple of her scenes for the movie
Details please. Sources?
Scenes from "Yesteryear" come to mind when Spock's childhood is explored in the new movie.
Sarek's dialog to Spock, regarding logic offering "a serenity humans seldom experience," is revisited in the 2009 Star Trek film.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Yesteryear"Yesteryear" was penned by D.C. Fontana, a writer and story consultant for the original series, who also served as the animated series producer. "Yesteryear" is the sequel to the original series episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison and ties in with the TOS episodes "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time".
# Fontana re-used the plot of this episode the same year for an episode of Land of the Lost entitled "Elsewhen".
It's weird. As a struggling writer, I know that my mindset right now is geared towards the idea that I would be incredibly grateful to have that one thing that managed to break through into the world and make an impact, even change a few lives for the better (which I believe Star Trek did). But at the same time, I know that as an artist I would be frustrated to find my efforts to tell new stories beyond that one moment of brilliance being met with indifference or entirely too much dedication to that one moment of brilliance.
If that makes sense.
The closest I can come to it can be drawn from my experience writing stage plays. The first one I ever wrote was a pretty decent hit, seeing productions in Chicago, Philadelphia, my old high school and a prestigious theater festival in Richmond. At certain points, it was even very nearly adapted into both comic book and short film form. I spent a good couple of years after that focusing my time and energy on other plays, some of which were far and away (in my opinion) much better than that first effort. But I could never get any of them out the door. The only luck I ever had with stage plays always came back to that first one.
It's nothing on the level of Fontana or Nimoy, so I guess that's why my mind still has this idea that having one thing hit people on the level that Star Trek has wouldn't be so bad.
Not that they seem bitter about it or anything.
I've since moved on to writing screenplays in the scriptwriting field, but I still occasionally try to shop my stage plays around.
The play saw its biggest success over five years ago. It's still probably the biggest hit I've had as a writer. And in those cases, when enough time passes, you do begin to fear that you only had the one good moment in you.
Again, it's weird.
IDW: In today’s world, especially in a property like Star Trek, that has seen stories told in movies, TV episodes, novels, comic books, video games, e-books and even Internet-based fan media, too, the question of what constitutes “canon” is very much an ongoing debate. The episode you wrote for Star Trek: the Animated Series, “Yesteryear,” is the only one that contains material that is considered canon. What makes it canonical while the others aren’t?
DOROTHY FONTANA: I suppose "canon" means what Gene Roddenberry decided it was. Remember, we were making it up as we went along on the original series (and on the animated one, too). We had a research company to keep us on the straight and narrow as to science, projected science based on known science, science fiction references (we didn’t want to step on anyone’s exclusive ideas in movies, other TV shows, or printed work). They also helped prevent contradictions and common reference errors. So the so-called canon evolved in its own way and its own time. For whatever reason, Gene Roddenberry apparently didn’t take the animated series seriously (no pun intended), although we worked very hard to do original STAR TREK stories and concepts at all times in the animated series. What freed us there was the fact that we could do environments and aliens without the constraints of sets, makeup and costumes that would have been difficult to do in live action. The research company also worked on this series, again to keep us within rules we had set up in the original series and to keep references in terms of science/science fiction etc. accurate.
IDW: And a follow-up to that question, what does “canon” mean to you? Do fans put too great an emphasis on what is canon instead of just what makes a good story?
DOROTHY FONTANA: I like a good story— but there are certain basic ground rules established which I don’t think can be easily tossed aside. I really hated it when one of the features (STAR TREK V) came up with a half brother for Spock when I had always insisted he had no other siblings. But I guess it isn’t "canon" if I wrote it. Go figure.
Reminds me of the time Leonard Nimoy spoke at my college back in the eighties. The poor guy was trying to promote his tv show, IN SEARCH OF, which he was heavily involved with at the time, but every time he took a question from the audience, it was about Spock and STAR TREK. He was gracious about it, but it must have been kind of frustrating. (I don't think anybody asked a question about IN SEARCH OF all night!)
Not her best work IMO, but we can forgive her this time I think
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.