David Gerrold's Post- Fascinating

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Vger23, Mar 17, 2015.

  1. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Confederation of Earth
    Neelix may be overly possessive and paranoid, but that doesn't change the fact that Kes was not a child (by any definition of the term) at the time. There is no connection between the two.

    When they met, Kes was 2 years old, which by Ocampa standards IS ADULTHOOD.
     
  2. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    Well, if two break up and stay broken up, then, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of a non-functional relationship. :guffaw:

    But that's got nothing whatsoever to do with whether Kes was a child while she and Neelix were together, which was the actual point in contention. :lol:

    Calling their relationship "creepy" doesn't carry any weight. Neelix never abused Kes, she never abused him (at least when she wasn't being possessed), Neelix never bullied Kes to remain with him. So, get over it already. She was an adult. And when she exercised her prerogative not to date Neelix, he respected that.

    Can we get back to discussing David Gerrold yet?

    Anyway, that's all I have to say about this. It just gets rather tiresome whenever it comes up, and it does so repeatedly, that's all.
     
  3. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    looks like the people he said wouldn't get it, didn't get it.
     
  4. Darren Mooney

    Darren Mooney Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    How do we define adulthood in an alien species? Even on Earth, eighteen is an arbitrary age set by legislatures. The age of majority differs between countries, for example. At 18, I can drink a beer in Ireland, but not in the United States. Age of consent is equally variable.

    More than that, do we know that she was actually two years old when they met? She is three years old half-way through the third season. The maths seems questionable.

    Anyway, Kes' child-like qualities are what make the relationship between her and Neelix so incredibly toxic.

    Kes is very young, has never been off her planet, whereas he is a veteran space explorer with his own ship. When we first meet Kes in Caretaker, she has clearly been physically abused. Neelix positions himself as "rescuer." It's not too hard to infer - particularly given the events of Warlord - that Kes simply doesn't have the life experience to realise that Neelix's behaviour towards her is abusive and that she does have the option of leaving him.

    The third season is quite clear on this - stressing the point that Kes is maturing into an adult making her own life choices. The obvious inference is that she was not an adult before.

    The fact that the show worked so hard in the third season to make it clear that Kes was no longer a child - coupled with breaking off the relationship between Neelix and Kes - makes it quite clear that the show considered her to be a child beforehand.

    (And this is an idea reinforced by more than just the scripts and the dialogue of the episodes. Look at the changing wardrobe and hairstyles that the production team afford Jennifer Lien. There is a conscious effort to move towards a young woman. Which demonstrates that they were transitioning away from the elfin child-like character.)

    Yes, but healthy mature people do not need genocidal alien warlords to handle their break-ups for them, is the point that I'm making. But, I'm willing to concede I might be generalising here. If you need Saddam Hussein to break up with your boyfriend for you, it probably says something about the relationship.

    You do realise that abuse does not have to be physical to be abuse? Emotional manipulation and controlling behaviour are pretty stock cards in the abuser deck, right? "You know where other men live on the ship? Why would you need to know that?" (see: Twisted) "Oh, don't worry about little old me, dying here on this table shortly after I whisked you away and saved you from the Kazon... you go on and live your life, never mind that I am in constant agony" (see: Phage) Coupled with the issue of Kes' age, it's a pretty damning indictment.

    Cool. We agree to disagree, then?
     
  5. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Kes didn't become an adult during the early seasons of the show, she was a fully mature adult when we saw her for the first time in the pilot. It would have been quite odd (an a bit abusive in of itself) if Janeway had taken a immature child way from her parents and home world to travel aboard her ship.

    Kes was never under Neelix's control within their relationship, he didn't cause her to live with him in his quarters, apparently they weren't engaging in sex, Kes had numerous friendship among the crew away from Neelix. Neelix seem surprised when Kes revealed she knew where various crewmembers lived aboard the ship. Kes had jobs aboard the ship outside of Neelix's supervision.

    If Neelix was seeking to control and manipulate Kes he certainly wasn't doing a particularly good job of it.

    :)
     
  6. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Garth of Algar Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Algar
    Well he's Neelix. He's not a good guide or cook either. ;)
     
  7. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    To be fair he was a good guide until they went beyond the limits of his knowledge.

    :)
     
  8. Kemaiku

    Kemaiku Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Since that was two minutes in, why wasn't he in the airlock before the end of Caretaker?
     
  9. ThankYouGeneR

    ThankYouGeneR Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Understood. Here is the link to Gerrold's Facebook page I excerpted from. His article itself is a much broader response to someone else's much broader article. I brought here what I considered germane to my conversation.


    And I do have some information on writing the episodes and his 'the stories we wrote' statement.

    On any one episode there will be an idea written and submitted by a person.

    The idea is accepted, then frequently re-written/added-to/changed dramatically, going through several writers... one at a time.. and sometimes back again, including Mr. Roddenberry, until Mr. Roddenberry either approves it or decides against it and it's shelved.

    Then comes the script writing which usually is written/re-written/changed dramatically by many writers... one at a time, including Mr. R until he either approves the script or decides against it and it's shelved.

    There are only single digit numbers of story-to-script-to-production episodes that made it from story to production with one and only one writer.

    Typically there were six or seven writers ...one at a time, working on each episode writing and re-writing over weeks, sometimes months.

    The rules for who gets credited and who gets $$ are a minefield to traverse much less even understand.

    There are all kinds of Rules. There are all kinds of people on the payroll that reworking these stories/scripts is a small part of the reason they get a paycheck. There are people hoping to break-in, who will hang around making themselves useful to the PTB unpaid, who are also in on the writing at times and/or giving ideas and/or script reading and note making while they hope it will lead to actual employment.

    There can be one or three (whatever) people 'credited' with the writing when actually seven to ten writers also may have done the major share of the writing. Sometimes more than the credited writer(s).

    There can be writers of an episode who get the lion's share of payment for writing the episode... who are un-credited and that we hear nothing about unless a LOT of digging is done, which for the layperson regular viewers was extremely difficult to ferret out before the Internet.

    Especially back in sixties television. But this still goes on in the business right now.

    It was not that long ago that I worked with a First Assistant Director on a film who was working for no pay, just to get the gig on his resume. The director directly under 'the' director. Working. For months. On the whole film. For nothing but a resume line.

    My friend's daughter is in cinematography working in "Hollywood" or where ever "Hollywood" is currently in production at the time who only in this last year was 'hired'.... after doing several years of working for nothing to finally get the resume, to be able to get hired once to be able to get her union card, to be able to get hired regularly.


    In this sense, listening to Mr. Gerrold talk about his involvement aspects back then, reading the things he's written about his involvement back then, he can in honesty and in accuracy say 'the stories we wrote'. Whether or not his name is credited. And though in my quote of him he is speaking of the OriginalSeries, he could also honestly and accurately say the same of NextGen in his time with it: 'the stories we wrote'.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2015
  10. IrishNero

    IrishNero Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Location:
    Drama Llama Land
    Sometimes we think these writers are stolen away behind a typewriter in seclusion whereas the reality you describe is very different. Thanks for that post. It was very enlightening.
     
  11. ThankYouGeneR

    ThankYouGeneR Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    You're welcome!
     
  12. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Okay, add all of those together with The Trouble with Tribbles and how many involve "social justice?" Tribbles, I Mudd, more Tribbles were comedy's, BEM as well contained no message of social justice.

    Only The Cloud Minders carried any kind of message, Gerrold created the story premise but not the script.

    Gerrold: "Most of the stories we wrote were about social justice" Again, where are we seeing "most?"

    :)
     
  13. ThankYouGeneR

    ThankYouGeneR Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2015
    Well, there it is then. Peace and long life, dear. Peace and long life.
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Former Democrat Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Just correcting the inaccurate credits.
     
  15. Jedi_Master

    Jedi_Master Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Location:
    Hurricane Alley
    Rants aren't really designed to stand up to detailed analysis and dissection.

    Any value that can be derived from them comes from the basic point or broad statement being made.
     
  16. Nightdiamond

    Nightdiamond Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Location:
    California
    Uhura seemed to have become a symbol just because of her very presence, and then all the documentaries, articles, interviews just expanded on that. But somehow, she did have an impact.

    And the same for the myth of social justice. Some of those messages are twisted in a way.

    Measure of a Man-- Data, despite his intelligence, is judged to be property of Starfleet. Picard fights in court for Data to be seen as a sentient being with rights.

    The court agrees. They saw their own error. This shows that Federation society is seen as being a fair place that is equal and just for all.

    Except at first, they were almost going to rule Data as property and force him to undergo a dangerous experiment against his will. Forget that part.


    The ironic thing is, if Trek is just another entertainment show, there would be no reason to feature a gay character if they (the writers, producers, whoever) didn't want to.

    If it's just for entertainment, why should they have an obligation to show gay characters, or anything involving equal rights?

    The ironic thing is, being perceived as a "message show" would probably be your best bet to ever see homosexual relationships on the show.

    Because if it's just for entertainment, it's just that easier to avoid the issue if they want. They'd be out for ratings only.

    There's was obviously some squeamish element that had some influence on what made it into Trek shows.

    It attached itself to the franchise, and made it their own. It willing to tolerate some ideas, but a same sex kiss, a female captain, was going too far, and that's when they let everyone know it.
     
  17. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    For which I thank you, I didn't know about Gerrold's involvement with I Mudd.

    The JAG court only said that Data did not have to submit to a transfer, not that Data was a "sentient being."

    And they in fact didn't want to, which is why they didn't.

    :)
     
  18. Darren Mooney

    Darren Mooney Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Two things:

    (A.) if you claim Star Trek is about social justice, the fact there are no LGBTQ people in the "regular" universe is a legitimate stick with which you can be beaten; if you really want to argue the franchise is genuinely progressive, you have to acknowledge that;

    (B.) a lot of non message shows feature LGBTQ characters; was Buffy more message-driven than Star Trek? 24 had a couple of LGBTQ characters, even; even The X-Files. Good television is good television. Diversity is inherently good. More viewpoints mean more stories, mean more opportunities.
     
  19. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    In SUMMMMMMER!
    Heck, even M*A*S*H had a guest character who was, and I think that Doctor Who, at least in the newer series, has done a decent job of having a different mix of characters.

    I don't think a message show is necessarily the only way to do it. I think that "Blood and Fire" as Gerrold originally conceived could have worked at the time, but just having a character who is, would be at least an effort.

    But, what do I know? I'm just a WASP ;)
     
  20. Maurice

    Maurice Fact Trekker Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    One ferry ride from Starfleet HQ
    Your explanation (the odd detour aside) is loosely correct, but while there are occasional issues with how credit is given or denied on WGA signatory productions, the basic rules are fairly straightforward and not as arcane as people make them out to be.

    A production may buy a story or screenplay from a writer or a writing team, and scripts or rewrites may be assigned to other writers at producer discretion. However, even if the original writer(s) do nothing more than sell the story, they will always get "Story by" credit because they originated the idea on which the shooting script gets based. No matter how far the script varies from the source, so long as the paper trail of rewrites leads back to the original story.

    To receive credit on any rewrite the writer or team must do work which can be said to constitute a change of 30% or more. This is where it gets slippery, because someone has to determine (if it goes to arbitration) what changes are substantive and what constitutes just shuffling things around or changing the words without changing what happens. Dialog polishes frequently fail to be treated as significant enough to merit screen credit because they do not usually constitute significant story changes.

    Requiring that credit requires a certain minimum of substantial changes and that only the most significant of said contributors do get credit tends to discourage other from doing unnecessary "fixes" to get a share of the glory.

    No, it doesn't always work equitably, but it does most of the time.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2015