Gene Roddenberry and The Making Of Star Trek....

[TREK_GOD_1]

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.

Same here. The "based on" movies about Batman, The Monkees and other TV series were an Olympic sized pool of recycled, long-debunked myths and flat out lies. Candy for the sleeping masses.

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.

Dragon was horrible--as though it was made by fanbooys too geeked up on kissing Bruce Lee's ass than painting as true picture of the man. The scene about the making of The Green Hornet TV series was as accurate to real production accounts as Monopoloy money.

Thanks to the quickie, thrill-a-minute / reality TV-minded culture we live in, a Making of Star Trek film would suffer the same fate as all other mentioned above.

A four hour documentary (in 2 parts) from researchers with no personal or fan bias (ex. anti-Shatner types) would be the best way to go.

 

[AtoZ]

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.

Perfect post

 

[plynch]

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.

Which the vast majority of people do not. Witness the general fawning over a certain series of TOS "histories" recently released.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Which the vast majority of people do not. Witness the general fawning over a certain series of TOS "histories" recently released.

That's a meaningless comparison. I'm not talking about inaccurate works of historical scholarship. I'm talking about drama, about narrative fiction based on historical events. There's a massive and obvious difference, in that a work of fiction makes no pretense of being true. No one with any sense could look at a movie with actors standing on sets reading dialogue and assume it was equivalent to a history book. It makes no sense to judge them by the same standards. Sleepy Hollow is not intended as a text on the American Revolution. The BBC's The Musketeers does not pretend to represent the true events of the reign of Louis XIII. It's understood that they aren't trying to represent reality. And it's unfair to accuse works of fiction of being equivalent to misleading or shoddy works of actual historical scholarship. A story is not a lie, because its teller does not want or expect anyone to believe it's true.

 

[CrazyMatt]

Any in-depth study of GR would make for an interesting psychological study. From what I know of the man (from what I've read from those who knew him personally), he was part genius, part narcissist, part visionary, part chauvinist, part exhibitionist and part social reformer.

To me, GR was a bit akin to Joan Crawford (minus the physical abuse) as depicted in "Mommie Dearest;" in that he was a living mass of contradictions.

 

[Sybok Was Wrong]

Movies like these, with conversations, scenarios, heck-even costumes & settings are pretty much guesswork- the only highlights would be the recreation of the TOS soundstages...

Frankly, I don't think the general public has much interest in watching "The Gene Roddenberry Story", and if it was truthful enough, most would be disappointed in the man. He was a pretty flawed person, but not in a entertaining, compelling way. Yeah, he created " Trek", but the rest?

 

[Christopher]

^Yeah, any movie about the making of TOS would probably focus mainly on Shatner and Nimoy, with Roddenberry in a supporting role.

Then again, An Adventure in Space and Time focused as much on Verity Lambert (the first producer of Doctor Who) as on William Hartnell (the first star of same).

 

[EnriqueH]

Frankly, I don't think the general public has much interest in watching "The Gene Roddenberry Story", and if it was truthful enough, most would be disappointed in the man. He was a pretty flawed person, but not in a entertaining, compelling way. Yeah, he created " Trek", but the rest?

^Yeah, any movie about the making of TOS would probably focus mainly on Shatner and Nimoy, with Roddenberry in a supporting role.

Are you two friggin' kidding me???

A good amount of Roddenberry's life was all about sex, money and drugs.

And you guys don't think that would sell?

What are you, crazy?

Between Gene's smoking, boozing, drug use, financial rollercoasters and hyper active sex life, you'd have a virtual sequel to The Wolf of Wall Street.

 

[Maurice]

I dunno that Gene did drugs (booze and cigs aside) during TOS.

As to a hyper-active sex life...did he actually have one or was he was a hound dog trying to have one. Just cause he wanted to score starlets doesn't mean it happened that often.

 

[EnriqueH]

I dunno that Gene did drugs (booze and cigs aside) during TOS.

As to a hyper-active sex life...did he actually have one or was he was a hound dog trying to have one. Just cause he wanted to score starlets doesn't mean it happened that often.

I guess it depends on who you ask.

Some people have you believe in St. Gene and others think he was a demon on wheels.

I'm about 90% sure Gene did do drugs. I can't remember right now which books I read, (I've had a few glasses of wine myself tonight), but I'm fairly certain he was a cocaine user at some point.

By the way, I admire Gene tremendously. He was human and flawed, but the man is my avatar for a reason.

 

[Melakon]

I dunno that Gene did drugs (booze and cigs aside) during TOS.

Depends if you think marijuana's a drug. Robert Justman said Gene told him to try it.

 

[Christopher]

As to a hyper-active sex life...did he actually have one or was he was a hound dog trying to have one. Just cause he wanted to score starlets doesn't mean it happened that often.

To all accounts, he was very well-liked by women. He was a charismatic, confident man who projected power -- plus he was a TV producer in an age when the casting couch was considered a normal part of the process. I think he probably had no shortage of volunteers. The male leads he wrote, from Captain Kirk to Rock Hudson's character in Pretty Maids All in a Row, didn't so much pursue women as get pursued by women and make the most of it. And I tend to think that reflects Roddenberry's own experience.

 

[Maurice]

Perhaps, but like so much of this stuff it's all conjecture, obviously.

 

[Christopher]

^Conjecture means speculation in the absence of evidence. Anecdotal testimony may not be rock-solid evidence, but it can be used as a basis for analysis. The claims of Roddenberry's promiscuity come largely from people other than Roddenberry -- e.g. Herb Solow, Bob Justman, Grace Lee Whitney, and Nichelle Nichols -- and they are pretty consistent. If there were conflicting stories, there'd be plenty of room for doubt, but if everyone basically agrees on it -- including women who actually asserted having affairs with him -- I'd have to ask what the basis would be for doubting it.

I mean, even Roddenberry's critics agree that he was a charming man. It's not that hard to believe that women were drawn to him, and it's certainly not hard to believe that he would've willingly taken advantage of their interest.

 

[EnriqueH]

Let me make this as simple as possible: the man scored with Nichelle Nichols.

And if you read her autobiography, she thought VERY highly of him.

He was doing something right.

 

[HIjol]

I love the idea of something like this to come to the Screen. I know that there is enough background and information to present the evolution and the meetings and the production of the thing well enough, and I agree with what has been stated upthread a couple of times, I think, in that there is enough information to speculate - very accurately in some places, a little less in others - of the detail and relationship and interaction and players in the drama. As long as there is transparency and disclosure by the theoretical Makers, people will know what is fact and what is supposition.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

First thing I thought of was something like a cross between Mad Men and Halt and Catch Fire.

I wouldn't want something like this focusing only on the main cast. I want to see how the sausage was/is made. I want to shine a light on the creator, the producers, writers, directors, art designers, in short everybody, including the fans. This has the potential to be really expansive.

 

[plynch]

I merely meant the love for a certain recent series of making-of books shows that people really don't know the truth and accept what is told to them as truth.

I would wish that historical drama did hew to the truth since that's where so many people get their "knowledge" of history. I read where "Selma" (haven't seen it, I admit) casts LBJ in a negative light contrary to his actual role in civil rights legislation. So that's how many will think of him.

 

[HIjol]

First thing I thought of was something like a cross between Mad Men and Halt and Catch Fire.

I wouldn't want something like this focusing only on the main cast. I want to see how the sausage was/is made. I want to shine a light on the creator, the producers, writers, directors, art designers, in short everybody, including the fans. This has the potential to be really expansive.

oh, absolutely! Behind the back-story! Deep inside the Jeffries Tubes!

 

[Harvey]

I dunno that Gene did drugs (booze and cigs aside) during TOS.

As to a hyper-active sex life...did he actually have one or was he was a hound dog trying to have one. Just cause he wanted to score starlets doesn't mean it happened that often.

I guess it depends on who you ask.

Some people have you believe in St. Gene and others think he was a demon on wheels.

I'm about 90% sure Gene did do drugs. I can't remember right now which books I read, (I've had a few glasses of wine myself tonight), but I'm fairly certain he was a cocaine user at some point.

Gene's coke habit in the 80s is mentioned several times in Susan Sackett's memoir, bu I haven't read anything about such habits happening during the original series.