David Gerrold on TNG and the Behind-the-Scenes Drama
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
Exactly, it's as if the original series not having any black people on it, but instead only having analogies for black people as guest stars in episodes.
I do think Berman's heart was in the right place but he clearly had some old fashioned views about the portrayal of homosexuality on TV that didn't evolve at the same rate as the industry around him.
I mean, if you think Enterprise was on the same network as Buffy with an openly gay lead, it's actually shameful that a series with the reputation of progressiveness and inclusiveness that Star Trek has couldn't manage even a semi-regular.
I used to follow him on Facebook and he seems to always have a bee in his bonnet over something, usually revolving around politics. He seemed to want to put more of his energy towards ranting than being a writer.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
From an audience perspective, I get how that would be viewed as cognitive dissonance when compared to shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, but at the same time those characters in those relationships were inherited from the series when they were broadcast on the WB.
Agreed. Similarly, I've often said that the writers of Enterprise missed a huge opportunity to include a Muslim or Arab character as a member of the crew. Being that it was the days and weeks after the September 11th attacks, it might have opened the show to some criticism but it would have been well within the legacy of the franchise (Chekov, Worf, etc) to show people who might be perceived as or who actually are our enemies today being viewed as members of our society in the future. It's a shame they didn't really take the opportunity. Then again, it likely wasn't something that writing staff was interested in doing. Or perhaps they didn't feel qualified to write a character like that properly. Who knows?
Lastly, it's also important to note that Rick Berman still had his own bosses to answer to. He may have well wanted to do these stories and was just given an unequivocal "Hells no" from his superiors and being the showrunner, he would then have had to toe that line regardless of his personal feelings on the matter.
If David Gerrold had ever been the showrunner of a successful television series (let alone four) he might have a little more empathy for the people who have performed that job. At this point, it's nice to hear his perspective but he's just poking and prodding from the outside looking in and kicking the usual whipping boy.
This!
I'm not a demograph, but I'm pretty sure the ten main character hadn't stastically representative backstories either.
We can remove Pulaski because her early life hadn't been established on screen and Data because he's a special case. What do we learn about the eight other characters's childhood? Three of them had lost a parent before they reached 10 years old and three others were already orphan. Even there, Picard had strained relations with his family. Geordi was the one with the less dramatic family life.
I don't think only 25% of people born between 1945 and 1975 in western countries had their both parents alive when they reached 10 years old. But yeah, an early parent's death provides easy drama.
And good luck to find statistical representativeness when you watch a tv-show.
An acquaintance on Facebook shared a posting by Gerrold concerning the wages of fast food workers. I took that moment to give my own opinion of Gerrold's works - hit or miss! - mentioning his Trek episodes and books like "The Man Who Folded Himself" and his "Blood and Fire" (which was made into a fanfilm).
I've felt for years that Gerrold has been trying to model himself on Harlan Ellison, at least where his public persona was concerned if not his actual writing (which I think is influenced more by Heinlein).
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Any respect I had for Gerrold as a person evaporated when he posted this comment. After a few of his friends pointed out, "hey that's not entirely kosher dude," he systematically went and deleted any comments broaching the subject suggesting that he'd gone too far, and then posted another screed defending his "sense of humor" and decrying anyone trying to censor him. He made it easy to "defriend" him that day, but it still troubles me how he goes on and on about "a better tomorrow" for everyone but can still delude himself into thinking that hiding behind "it's my sense of humor!" is somehow carte blanche for comments like that.
Last edited:
You just touched on something I was thinking about while reading these posts, that David Gerrold has something in common with Harlan Ellison: neither one seems able to let the past go.
Ellison wrote one script for an episode of Trek more than four decades ago. Roddenberry's last written Trek was in the 80s. As for on-screen Trek, ALL Trek is in the past. Reading your post at face value, I must ask ... Does that mean there is no value in discussing it? If so, what is the purpose of this message board, and why are we posting here?
Yeah... part of the reason I lost interest in reading Gerrold's books is that I got tired of how every one featured a new way of insulting and denigrating Leonard Maizlish, whether by basing a thoroughly despicable character on him or using his name as an alien curse word or whatever. It just got so petty and juvenile. I believe that Gerrold had legitimate grounds for disapproving of Maizlish's behavior on TNG -- there's been enough corroboration elsewhere -- but it's not healthy to hold a grudge for so long, and it isn't fun to read a years-long, one-sided flame war.
Yeah, that kind of crossed my mind the moment I posted. I think the main difference is that we weren't involved in the original productions. We still discuss them, but our lives have moved forward. While the two gentlemen I mentioned have done other things since, it just seems that any dissatisfaction of their Star Trek experiences would have faded into memory by now.
Not speaking of them specifically, but just imagine someone who couldn't let any 'injustice' go. That would be a path to madness.
Actually, that reputation was earned by Star Trek itself and not any of the spin offs, they weren't particularly progressive or inclusive.
This.
On the contrary. At the time DS9 was on, I don't think there were any other TV dramas with African-American leads -- and the close, loving relationship between Sisko and Jake was quite notable in a time when society tended to stereotype black men as deadbeat dads. And giving Voyager a female captain was pretty progressive for the time; the series predated Xena: Warrior Princess by nearly a year and Buffy the Vampire Slayer by two years.
As for TNG, including Geordi, a blind character, as a regular was progressive in intent, but they kind of undermined it by giving him superhuman compensation.
There's also the same-sex kiss in DS9's "Rejoined," which was quite daring and controversial at the time. True, it would've been bolder to include a gay or lesbian regular, but even showing two women kissing onscreen was still quite a big deal back then.
So it's true that the franchise fell short in a number of respects, but it did manage to be progressive in other ways.
I've been waiting over 25 years to see Trek do gay characters right on screen, so the issue is important to me. Seeing yourself reflected in media is important, but even more so when you're dealing with Trek, which presents an idealistic future for humanity. When you can't see yourself there, it is hurtful. I understand the issues involved with behind the scenes limitations, but by Enterprise, it should've happened. That is still hasn't happened in the new movies - well, that's just wrong. Many times, even on this forum, I've read/heard people speculate that homosexuality has been wiped out in Trek's future judged by what's seen on screen.
The novels have come much further, and I'm very appreciative of that.
I am surprised and disappointed that Gerrold hasn't included LGBT characters in more of his work, only including them in one short story and incidently in a non sci fi autobiographical novel. You'd think he'd have included them among the leads, or at least as supporting characters of his epic sci fi serieses. Considering he was vocal about trying to bring that diversity to Trek, it strikes me as odd that he failed to do so in his own series.
The novels have come much further, and I'm very appreciative of that.
I am surprised and disappointed that Gerrold hasn't included LGBT characters in more of his work, only including them in one short story and incidently in a non sci fi autobiographical novel. You'd think he'd have included them among the leads, or at least as supporting characters of his epic sci fi serieses. Considering he was vocal about trying to bring that diversity to Trek, it strikes me as odd that he failed to do so in his own series.
Not speaking of them specifically, but just imagine someone who couldn't let any 'injustice' go. That would be a path to madness.
It might be wise to put the profession of working in showbiz into perspective. I have watched a lot of Archive of American Television interviews, and I've heard a lot of war-stories as bad if not worse than Gerrold or Ellison. But these people (like Roy Huggins, for instance) knew how to bob and weave in order to not completely burn their bridges. It sounds romantic to fight for your ideals, but Hollywood is like politics. It's the art of compromise.
"In the Heat of the Night" had Henry Rollins as Virgil Tibbs, a black leading role that was taken over by Carl Weathers in later seasons. And, there was the very short-lived "A Man Called Hawk."
Even though there were black fathers and black leads, they unfortunately were not in dramas, but in sitcoms at the time: Robert Townsend's "The Parenthood," "True Colors"(featuring an interracial couple that never was really intimate due to the era), "A Different World"....
I love his role in the first season. He was given command, and seemed like a character that would or could be the young hot shot that could be under Picards's wing and grow into his own character over the course of the show. Alas, they seemed to have turned him into a joke in later seasons in having him fail as a romantic individual opposite every other non-black female ....only to briefly succeed at love when they brought a black female in the cast (e.g. "Ariel"). Also, he didn't seem to be too saavy in unarmed combat.
I can actually agree with that.
The problem with the "identifies as gay" statistic is that it's fundamentally flawed. Human sexuality represents a spectrum, and people who fall elsewhere on the Kinsey scale than the extreme ends tend not to be reported. Also in any culture where there's still a stigma attached to being gay some people aren't going to be honest about it.
Similar threads
