Richard Arnold Interview @MissionLogPod

[HaplessCrewman]

But that wasn't the only reason Roddenberry signed off on the Animated Series. Roddenberry got his name out there and got checks to cash, and Fontana and Gerrold did the hard work. Not a bad deal, really.

Gerrold wrote two episodes. Hardly doing the "hard work".

As to the Mission Log podcast I abandoned it after their awful discussion of "This Side of Paradise" where one of them insisted that Kirk was wrong in removing the colonists from their "paradise", completely missing the point that the people were in no way consenting. It was pretty repugnant, and I had no interest in hearing them after that.

Another thing they do that is pretty annoying is that they absolutely refuse to discuss the episodes in the context of when they were created. For some reason, they expect a show created in the mid-to-late 1960s to reflect a modern sensibility regarding women's roles, sexism, etc. If I expected everything I read, watch, or hear to reflect my own personal attitudes in the year 2014, I'd never be able to enjoy anything more than a few years old.

They often miss the forest for the trees.

They also assume that Trek was created out of whole cloth and not something created by many and built upon over time. They'll complain that Kirk's actions are not consistent from episode to episode, whine about why characters don't remember events from previous episodes, etc - all typical traits of 1960's TV shows.

I personally enjoy Trek's inconsistencies and see it as a wonderful tapestry with many avenues to explore. If every single thing was explained, sewed-up, consistent - I don't think I would find it half as engaging.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Actually the issue of context does come up from time to time.

There is stuff they miss or get wrong, but then so do a lot of Trek fans. I listen for the discussions about ideas within the episodes. Sometimes they do raise notions I had not considered before.

On one hand I don't mind an aspect of a younger person's perspective who might have come into Star Trek through mostly TNG or the film era (which Ken Ray seems to be having said he was born about 1970). But the older commentator, John Champion, doesn't seem that much older and his perspective doesn't seem that much different.

It can still be interesting when they don't agree. Sometimes I find Ken more forgiving than John, but other times not.

Neither of them strikes me as having encyclopedic like knowledge of Trek, certainly not on the order of someone like SF writer Robert Sawyer who is a HUGE TOS fan.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

I think that when they do mention context, they only do so to brush it aside.

Age is a factor in their discussions and it is my suspicion that TNG might be much more their speed. TOS had a take no prisoners, aggressive spirit that the later shows eschewed. I think John and Ken especially will take much more naturally to TNG's staid approach to Trek. That said, I will continue to listen to their podcast and will probably enjoy it more as Trek transitions into a form much more to their liking.

Sometimes, I think they approach TOS not as something they love but with the distancing attitude of "Why is this show loved by so many people?"

 

[Warped9]

Sometimes, I think they approach TOS not as something they love but with the distancing attitude of "Why is this show loved by so many people?"

That isn't wholly bad given that more often than not they do seem to look favourably upon the TOS episodes. Mind you I'm still going through their first season episode podcasts. It might change, but for now they seem to be reasonably open minded.

And a lot of younger viewers watching TOS for the first time could experience the episodes in similar vein as they two guys.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

Sometimes, I think they approach TOS not as something they love but with the distancing attitude of "Why is this show loved by so many people?"

That isn't wholly bad given that more often than not they do seem to look favourably upon the TOS episodes. Mind you I'm still going through their first season episode podcasts. It might change, but for now they seem to be reasonably open minded.

And a lot of younger viewers watching TOS for the first time could experience the episodes in similar vein as they two guys.

^^Yes, definitely.

Here is something that I do look forward to on Mission Log. I really like Ken's episode summaries as they are funny and irreverent. John's are too long and most of his jokes fall flat.

BTW, after reading your comments, I am giving their "A Taste of Armageddon" episode another listen.

 

[Warped9]

Here is something that I do look forward to on Mission Log. I really like Ken's episode summaries as they are funny and irreverent. John's are too long and most of his jokes fall flat.

Yeah, I do find Ken more engaging. Sometimes his mind goes to...interesting places. But I like some of the ideas raised.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Ha, none of this makes me want to find the time to listen to them talk about the series. I could see me getting annoyed, saying "nope, that's wrong. Nope, that's wrong. jeez, guys,what the hell?!"

 

[Warped9]

Ha, none of this makes me want to find the time to listen to them talk about the series. I could see me getting annoyed, saying "nope, that's wrong. Nope, that's wrong. jeez, guys,what the hell?!"

Actually they don't do that much at all. Their discussions can get amusing, but never derogatory or disrespectful. I'm definitely a big TOS fan and I don't find myself feeling offended by any of their remarks.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The comments about "Bread and Circuses" sound a little revisionist to me -- Roddenberry's MO by 1990 -- but I need to do more research.

That was typical Roddenberry by that time--he was bitter, and trying to cherry-pick/hammer TOS into something it was not. The same applies to his flip-flopped stand against TAS.

 

[trevanian]

Actually, I was surprised to hear from Arnold that TNG's "Silicon Avatar" was the last episode G.R. saw. I had always assumed that he had stepped away from TNG by that point. Maybe his involvement in the 3rd season was just watching episodes.

He still had SOME involvement during 4th season. When I was there to pitch to Piller in December 1990, he got called out before the session to deal with some GR issue (apparently he was in the building.) He told his secretary to not circulate the outline or treatment of REDEMPTION (well, he said the season-ender, didn't use a title) to GR as he left. (I just came across a copy of an old letter I sent to someone about that pitch session and it had a teensy bit more info than I am normally able to recall from memory.)

 

[Maurice]

They fact that they were frequently factually incorrect didn't help. That I didn't find their commentary that interesting or informative was worse. The "Paradise" podcast was just the final nail in the coffin.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

Yeah, their podcast on "This Side of Paradise" is particularly nutty. Ken Ray seems absolutely baffled why anyone would not want to be infected by the spores and have complacency & "happiness" foisted upon them against their will. He totally believes Kirk was wrong to snap the colonists out of their alien-induced reverie.

I urge anyone who wants to listen to an interpretation of this episode you are not going to hear anywhere else to give this episode a listen.

http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/archive/

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yeah, their podcast on "This Side of Paradise" is particularly nutty. Ken Ray seems absolutely baffled why anyone would not want to be infected by the spores and have complacency & "happiness" foisted upon them against their will. He totally believes Kirk was wrong to snap the colonists out of their alien-induced reverie.

Ray sounds like one of the delusional counter-culture leftovers from the late 60s....and not in the nature-seeking "The Way to Eden" variety, either.

 

[Maurice]

They and Arnold are utterly ignorant of how the WGA determined credits and payments. Ugh. For his supposed encyclopedic knowledge he makes a lot of misstatements.

Done.

 

[GeorgeKirk]

I actually sent an email to Mission Log asking why they didn't address any of the controversy surrounding Richard Arnold or push back against any of his more outlandish (and obviously untrue) claims. I got a reply from John saying that Arnold's interview was supposed to serve as a "counterpoint" to the David Gerrold interview they did earlier.

Make of that what you will. Personally I think that Richard Arnold serves as a counterpoint to David Gerrold the way Carlos Mencia serves as a counterpoint to George Carlin.

 

[trevanian]

I actually sent an email to Mission Log asking why they didn't address any of the controversy surrounding Richard Arnold or push back against any of his more outlandish (and obviously untrue) claims. I got a reply from John saying that Arnold's interview was supposed to serve as a "counterpoint" to the David Gerrold interview they did earlier.

Make of that what you will. Personally I think that Richard Arnold serves as a counterpoint to David Gerrold the way Carlos Mencia serves as a counterpoint to George Carlin.

I am so glad my coffee was in the other room and not between my lips when I read that last part. Might as well have said Lenny Bruce and Jack Carter.

As another counterpoint i just experienced (a similar difference in talent from where I stand, pointing up REPO MAN's 'lattice of coincidence' at work), I just made posts about the great Gene Coon and the grating John Logan.