Gene Roddenberry and The Making Of Star Trek....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I posited a somewhat similar idea a while back, so you've got my yes vote! I think it could work! 
Hmm, what actor could play Gene R.?
Or D.C. Fontana...or any of the bunch?
It's fun to think about!
Hmm, what actor could play Gene R.?
Or D.C. Fontana...or any of the bunch?
It's fun to think about!
A film about GR making Star Trek would be must-see for us, but we would see tons of mistakes and historical revisions in it. That's just inescapable for several reasons:
- The writers would do very limited research compared to what we know collectively on this forum.
- A narrative would have to be crafted to make it entertaining, and that would bring in some baloney or other.
- The limited length and narrow focus of a film script would exclude a lot of important people and events. There might be no Gene Coon, no Herb Solow. Robert Justman might be an errand boy in this movie, and you can probably forget John D.F. Black. On and on. Harlan Ellison might make a colorful character if they weren't afraid he'd sue them for it.
Also, most movies like this seem to focus a lot on the actors, such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_On_Get_Happy:_The_Partridge_Family_Story
An exception is this immensely unflattering portrait of Alfred Hitchcock...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_(2012_TV_film)
...and even that focused more on the actress Tippi Hedren.
This one about George Reeves as Superman was focused mostly on a fictional private eye looking into Reeves' death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywoodland
So a big question would be, where is the focus going to land? They could do the whole thing from Nichelle Nichols' point of view, and make out as if she were the heart and soul of Star Trek. They could do anything that made business sense ("We want that demographic...").
I'd still love to see it done, but I'd expect a ton of nonsense.
- The writers would do very limited research compared to what we know collectively on this forum.
- A narrative would have to be crafted to make it entertaining, and that would bring in some baloney or other.
- The limited length and narrow focus of a film script would exclude a lot of important people and events. There might be no Gene Coon, no Herb Solow. Robert Justman might be an errand boy in this movie, and you can probably forget John D.F. Black. On and on. Harlan Ellison might make a colorful character if they weren't afraid he'd sue them for it.
Also, most movies like this seem to focus a lot on the actors, such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_On_Get_Happy:_The_Partridge_Family_Story
An exception is this immensely unflattering portrait of Alfred Hitchcock...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_(2012_TV_film)
...and even that focused more on the actress Tippi Hedren.
This one about George Reeves as Superman was focused mostly on a fictional private eye looking into Reeves' death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywoodland
So a big question would be, where is the focus going to land? They could do the whole thing from Nichelle Nichols' point of view, and make out as if she were the heart and soul of Star Trek. They could do anything that made business sense ("We want that demographic...").
I'd still love to see it done, but I'd expect a ton of nonsense.
I could totally see this as a series. Maybe no more than one season, but a full season. And it would basically be Mad Men makes Star Trek. I can totally see the backroom shenanigans of the 60s playing out for good television today. I don't know if it could be made about actual Sta Trek though or if it would be made about a Galaxy Quest style "Not-The-Show." That, of course, everyone winked and nodded and knew it was meant to be Star Trek.
On the other hand, I expect if such a show were made, if it weren't billed as being Trek, it might garner a smaller audience? I'm no exec, so what do I know?
--Alex
On the other hand, I expect if such a show were made, if it weren't billed as being Trek, it might garner a smaller audience? I'm no exec, so what do I know?
--Alex
I'd settle for a well-made documentary, but it is probable that too many of the key players have already passed on.
In this version of the story, Martin Luther King would be visiting the set the day Nichelle almost quits the show, and convinces her to stay after an emotionally tense scene between them in her dressing room.
There's undoubtedly some milage in the idea, in the same vein as the Doctor Who Adventure In Time And Space special last year, or Return To The Batcave: The Adventures Of Adam And Burt.
I don't think it would just be a 'fans only' thing either. I think it would have a lot of broad cross-market appeal.
I don't think it would just be a 'fans only' thing either. I think it would have a lot of broad cross-market appeal.
Or Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of 'Three's Company' (2003). Or Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History (2001).
Hell, if they can make a TV-movie about Gilligan's Island, for Christ's sake, why not Star Trek?
To recycle an old post: I can imagine the cattle call auditions for the role of William Shatner -- a few dozen unknown but hopeful young actors on an empty soundstage, all doing their best Shatner impersonations at once, like the auditions for the part of Hitler in The Producers.
Last edited:
I was going to mention Doctor Who's Adventure In Time And Space. Definitely my highlight of the 50th celebrations. A TOS TV movie in the same vein would be very welcome.
I'm not a big fan of the "based on a true story" variety of movie because they're virtually GUARANTEED to have embellishments, omissions, and arbitrary conflict for entertainment purposes.
And for people so close to Star Trek, so passionate, it's virtually all but guaranteed to disappoint EVERYONE here.
I'm with Push the Button: give me a well-researched documentary.
A dramatized version of the story? It might be cool as a lightning rod to bring attention to Star Trek for casual fans or to bring in new fans.
But for us the well-read, well-versed, who soak up as much Star Trek as possible? It's doomed to fail dramatically.
For example, "Ali" and "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story" got so many minor details wrong that it took me out of both movies. I'm sitting there watching Will Smith do a good Ali, but then I'm sitting there watching him run and run and I start thinking, "Why am I even watching this? I know Ali's story. And there are COUNTLESS Ali documentaries. I might as well watch the REAL Ali do his thing." And don't even get me started on "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story"...
A dramatized mini-series about the creation of Star Trek would be for newbies.
Not for us.
And for people so close to Star Trek, so passionate, it's virtually all but guaranteed to disappoint EVERYONE here.
I'm with Push the Button: give me a well-researched documentary.
A dramatized version of the story? It might be cool as a lightning rod to bring attention to Star Trek for casual fans or to bring in new fans.
But for us the well-read, well-versed, who soak up as much Star Trek as possible? It's doomed to fail dramatically.
For example, "Ali" and "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story" got so many minor details wrong that it took me out of both movies. I'm sitting there watching Will Smith do a good Ali, but then I'm sitting there watching him run and run and I start thinking, "Why am I even watching this? I know Ali's story. And there are COUNTLESS Ali documentaries. I might as well watch the REAL Ali do his thing." And don't even get me started on "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story"...
A dramatized mini-series about the creation of Star Trek would be for newbies.
Not for us.
I'm reminded of an old Warner Brothers cartoon or something that parodied the opening of Dragnet-- "The story you are about to see is a lie! No names have been changed to protect anybody!"
It should probably be at the beginning of every historical and biographical film.
It's even worse if you're passionate about the subject of the movie.
For example, in "Ali" they got the color of the ring mattress in the Ali-Foreman fight wrong. One of the most important heavyweight matches of all time, and certainly one of the most important fights for Ali, but they got the ring color wrong.
Ok, not a huge deal in terms of the story, but I've seen the Ali-Foreman fight at least a dozen times. Seen clips of the fight even more. It reminds you that you're not watching the real deal.
It might be ok for a casual Ali fan, or someone who doesn't know about him, but for a huge fan like me? Forget it, that lapse in detail is like an alarm clock going off at 4 a.m.
For example, in "Ali" they got the color of the ring mattress in the Ali-Foreman fight wrong. One of the most important heavyweight matches of all time, and certainly one of the most important fights for Ali, but they got the ring color wrong.
Ok, not a huge deal in terms of the story, but I've seen the Ali-Foreman fight at least a dozen times. Seen clips of the fight even more. It reminds you that you're not watching the real deal.
It might be ok for a casual Ali fan, or someone who doesn't know about him, but for a huge fan like me? Forget it, that lapse in detail is like an alarm clock going off at 4 a.m.
i.e. the bulk of their audience, i.e, the money
This project would be maddening UNLESS it were oddly stylistic, like in the manner of a TOS or 60s era TV. IIRC the Monkees one was weird in that way -- wasn't the Batman one too? -- which can up the watchability factor.
You would need a dramatic conflict. GR v. blockhead suits, probably. Or Lucy!? Imagine the scene with her confused about the USO tour!
They could structure a Roddenberry film easily. Start with his WWII service, then as a cop moonlighting as a writer, then brief success with The Lieutenant (meeting people he would hire again, notably Nimoy and Nichols), and the second half based on events surrounding the first pilot. At the climax, NBC turns down the pilot. Then despair, and possible salvation when the network says try again. Fade out with Gene at the typewriter.
Only if they make the mistake of assuming it's meant to fill the same role as a documentary. It isn't. The purpose is to tell an entertaining fictionalized story. Nobody would offer Shakespeare's Julius Caesar as a Roman history text, but that doesn't mean the play is bad or shouldn't exist -- it just means that historical fiction is not the same thing as historical scholarship. As long as you keep that distinction in mind, there's no reason you can't enjoy a docudrama as a drama, which is all it's really intended to be. It's not trying to lie to you about what really happened, because its makers assume you already understand the difference between fiction and history.
Similar threads
