Why Does D.C. Fontana Never Speak About Trek?

[Too Much Fun]

That story of Nimoy is like something right out of a classic Simpsons episode. It's like that episode where there's a comic book convention and the guy who used to play Radioactive Man's sidekick on TV is reduced to tears because instead of asking questions about him, the audience just wants to inquire about the bizarre circumstances surrounding the death of his co-star.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I would be surprised if D.C. Fontana would feel good about how her work was taken by the new Star Trek production... haven't heard any kudos from JJ or Orci/Kurtzman for DC... let alone any remuneration for basically lifting a couple of her scenes for the movie...

Screenwriting credits are arbitrated by the Screen Writers' Guild. The producers have no say on who gets credited. They simply hand in all existing script drafts, and the contributions are weighed up. The new movie pays homage to two brief scenes in "Yesteryear", but that's not enough that DC would be given a screen credit.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Didn't she also co-create TNG with Roddenberry, Justman, and Gerrold, for which no0ne of them (aside from Roddenberry) got any credit?

Fontana on canon:

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.
​

What a sharp lady.

I always knew that, but still. Good stuff.

 

[Praetor]

Yeah, agreed.

 

[JoeD80]

I have never seen any interviews with D.C. Fontana that were published in the last ten-twenty years.

Everything I've ever read about her contributions to TOS and TNG make me think she is due a lot of credit that she doesn't get. For that, she could (and I'm not saying she necessarily is) be a bit weary of talking Trek too much.

I just read Joel Engel's unauthorized biography of Gene Roddenberry and although most of it is stuff is info I have read in other books, there was a long chapter about Fontana's experience on The Next Generation. It does not sound like something one would want to keep talking about. (Highlight for those who haven't seen the book: She talks about Roddenberry's lawyer trying to get her to take sides against David Gerrold's grievance over the creation of the TNG bible and being moved to the basement office when she didn't cooperate)

 

[Neopeius]

Has she seen the movie? I'd be curious to hear her take on it.

"Space Family Robinson"? Cool avatar

 

[igrokbok]

Has she seen the movie? I'd be curious to hear her take on it.

"Space Family Robinson"? Cool avatar

Thanks, I love me some Lost in Space!

 

[Bad Atom]

I would be surprised if D.C. Fontana would feel good about how her work was taken by the new Star Trek production... haven't heard any kudos from JJ or Orci/Kurtzman for DC... let alone any remuneration for basically lifting a couple of her scenes for the movie...

Screenwriting credits are arbitrated by the Screen Writers' Guild. The producers have no say on who gets credited. They simply hand in all existing script drafts, and the contributions are weighed up. The new movie pays homage to two brief scenes in "Yesteryear", but that's not enough that DC would be given a screen credit.

If she were Harlan Ellison she would have sued by now.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I have never seen any interviews with D.C. Fontana that were published in the last ten-twenty years.

Everything I've ever read about her contributions to TOS and TNG make me think she is due a lot of credit that she doesn't get. For that, she could (and I'm not saying she necessarily is) be a bit weary of talking Trek too much.

I just read Joel Engel's unauthorized biography of Gene Roddenberry and although most of it is stuff is info I have read in other books, there was a long chapter about Fontana's experience on The Next Generation. It does not sound like something one would want to keep talking about. (Highlight for those who haven't seen the book: She talks about Roddenberry's lawyer trying to get her to take sides against David Gerrold's grievance over the creation of the TNG bible and being moved to the basement office when she didn't cooperate)

DC and David between them did all the dirty work on TNG's set up and GR and his scumbag lawyer ripped them off bigtime. The reason she doesn't talk about that time is because under the terms of the settlement with the Writers' Guild and Paramount, she CAN'T talk about it.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Didn't she also co-create TNG with Roddenberry, Justman, and Gerrold, for which no0ne of them (aside from Roddenberry) got any credit?

Fontana on canon:

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.
​

​

I wonder if they still use such research companies, sounds like a good idea.​

 

[pymfan2000]

I thought her interviews on the Animated DVD set were very interesting. They do take some of the shine off of Paramount and Roddenberry vis-a-vis TAS (i.e. deciding after the fact that TAS wasn't canon).

 

[Praetor]

I just read Joel Engel's unauthorized biography of Gene Roddenberry and although most of it is stuff is info I have read in other books, there was a long chapter about Fontana's experience on The Next Generation. It does not sound like something one would want to keep talking about. (Highlight for those who haven't seen the book: She talks about Roddenberry's lawyer trying to get her to take sides against David Gerrold's grievance over the creation of the TNG bible and being moved to the basement office when she didn't cooperate)

Damn.

DC and David between them did all the dirty work on TNG's set up and GR and his scumbag lawyer ripped them off bigtime. The reason she doesn't talk about that time is because under the terms of the settlement with the Writers' Guild and Paramount, she CAN'T talk about it.

Double damn, I didn't know she couldn't talk about it!

Can she write a tell-all about it? Because I wish she would. Really. The few fans who have this idealized portrait of Roddenberry really need their stories straightened out.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Can she write a tell-all about it? Because I wish she would. Really. The few fans who have this idealized portrait of Roddenberry really need their stories straightened out.

It's a typical Hollywood story, and has been told many times by others. It's really not so unusual, sadly. If it's only "a few fans", then why shatter their illusions? It's not as if they'll suddenly believe new negative anecdotes of ancient history. Certainly, there'd be people out there with beefs, rightly or wrongly, with Fontana and Gerrold themselves. Both were involved with several other shows, hiring, editing and firing fellow writers when they were showrunners. It's a tough business.

When DC Fontana and David Gerrold sued for recognition of their creative input of TNG, there was a court case and a settlement, but they were ordered not to discuss it, so we can only assume they were, in fact, compensated monetarily. The opening credits have not been altered, so they didn't have an outright win. Not discussing it means not talking or writing about it, and they agreed to that gag to get the resolution they did.

If you pick up the Engle, Alexander and Justman & Solow "tell-all" books, you'll get the GR story from three entirely different angles, and you can form your own opinions from that. Do we really need more angles?

 

[Praetor]

Yeah, I concede the point, Therin. It's still sad, and I'd still like Fontana to have the opportunity to share her perspective, though.

 

[JoeD80]

I'd still like Fontana to have the opportunity to share her perspective, though.

Well Fontana's story is already in Joel Engel's book. I read an interview with her somewhere where she said "read Joel's book." There are direct quotes from her and the story there.

When DC Fontana and David Gerrold sued for recognition of their creative input of TNG, there was a court case and a settlement.

There was no case, just settlement.

The opening credits have not been altered, so they didn't have an outright win.

What Gerrold was also looking for was the payment for writing the TNG series bible. The payment for writing a series bible is substantial (~$40,000) and Roddenberry was claiming it was all his work so Gerrold would get $0.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

When DC Fontana and David Gerrold sued for recognition of their creative input of TNG, there was a court case and a settlement, but they were ordered not to discuss it, so we can only assume they were, in fact, compensated monetarily. The opening credits have not been altered, so they didn't have an outright win. Not discussing it means not talking or writing about it, and they agreed to that gag to get the resolution they did.

Basically they got paid to go away, and Paramount admitted nothing. That's the way I read it.

I also note that neither have had any seriously visible presence in the industry since...coincidence?

 

[Gary7]

It is indeed sad what the money making engines can do to people. They can turn people into millionaires overnight or destroy careers just as fast. When credit is due, it should be given... yet, if one has a fear of getting nothing, they'd rather take some pay and sign a form not to ever bring up the contention again. Looks like Gerrold and Fontana had to do that.

I shake my head every time I hear bits about Roddenberry's greed... such a different picture than the one he paints on the screen (his interviews seem open, sincere, and humble, yet his actions have been many times contrary to this). He didn't stand up for everyone who supported him--only certain people fortunate to have the right clout and power.

 

[RAMA]

She talks about it constantly....she's interviewed for almost every single special or DVD!

 

[Navigator_NCC2120]

I found this DC Fontana interview from July 30, 2003 (almost 6 years ago) about TOS, while I was watching this tribute interview of TOS Producer Bob Justman I found in this TrekBBS thread. It was interesting to get some behind the scenes info on TOS from her interview.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

 

[JoeD80]

I also note that neither have had any seriously visible presence in the industry since...coincidence?

Probably, considering Fontana still wrote scripts up to the end of the 90s and Gerrold writes plenty of books to keep himself busy.