Hated it

[BigJake]

I'm actually curious about a lot of these common assertions about TNG (Roddenberry being the fourth or fifth choice; behind whom? and I thought it was he who initially refused involvement before coming aboard?) or how "the show was lucky not to get cancelled in the first three seasons" (wasn't luck, the show was profitable from the outset). But time to move to another forum for that, maybe.

 

[Franklin]

Despite who the "creator" is, TOS wouldn't have been half of what it was without the input of Gene Coon and others. TNG wouldn't have been half the show it was without Rick Berman and others. The movies wouldn't have worked well without the input of Harve Bennett, Nick Meyer and even Leonard Nimoy.

Gene Coon was the unsung hero of TOS, maybe as responsible for its success as Roddenberry, himself. Roddenberry wasn't irrelevant to TNG's success, but he may not even be responsible for half of it. TNG really took off when Berman was the one in charge. By season three, Roddenberry had little to do with TNG. He also had little to do with the TOS movies after TMP.

Could TNG have been created without Roddenberry and what would've it looked like if they had been? Who knows? For me, it's far too hypothetical to matter. What we do know is many believe Abrams and his associates have been good and reasonable custodians of Roddenberry's creations and recommendations for what the characters needed to be and what a good Trek story needed to have.

 

[BillJ]

I'm actually curious about a lot of these common assertions about TNG (Roddenberry being the fourth or fifth choice; behind whom?...)

Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis were two of the names I've seen mentioned in connection with a "new" Star Trek prior to Roddenberry being brought back.

 

[BigJake]

^^ Far as TNG post-season 3 goes I'm kind of a convert to Piller's being the great unsung hero. But all of that aside:

What we do know is many believe Abrams and his associates have been good and reasonable custodians of Roddenberry's creations and recommendations for what the characters needed to be and what a good Trek story needed to have.

They're as free to believe that as others are to disagree, I could just do without the embarrassing spectacle of professed NuTrekkies stumbling over each other to piss on Roddenberry's grave every time someone mentions his "vision" in a positive light.

 

[BillJ]

They're as free to believe that as others are to disagree, I could just do without the embarrassing spectacle of professed NuTrekkies stumbling over each other to piss on Roddenberry's grave every time someone mentions his "vision" in a positive light.

I respect Roddenberry for giving me something very important to my formative years. I doubt I'm the same person today without the original Star Trek. But, if he truly had a vision, truth would seem to be part of that vision.

Is it pissing on the graves of people like Washington and Jefferson to acknowledge the flaws they had (owning other humans) while still considering them great leaders of the time?

 

[Franklin]

They're as free to believe that as others are to disagree, I could just do without the embarrassing spectacle of professed NuTrekkies stumbling over each other to piss on Roddenberry's grave every time someone mentions his "vision" in a positive light.

I respect Roddenberry for giving me something very important to my formative years. I doubt I'm the same person today without the original Star Trek. But, if he truly had a vision, truth would seem to be part of that vision.

Is it pissing on the graves of people like Washington and Jefferson to acknowledge the flaws they had while still considering them great leaders of the time?

+1

Sometimes the product is good and the producer isn't too savory a person. Roddenberry wasn't a demigod, and probably not someone I'd want to call friend, but I'm damn glad he came up with "Star Trek". That said, I would've respected his "vision" even more if he hadn't begun to tarnish it himself with WWIII, whether it be the Eugenics wars or the post-nuclear WWIII as presented in TNG, or both.

I'm probably not stating this the best because I don't have the time, but here goes -- .

To me, his optimistic "vision" meant a lot during the Cold War. Bookended by the Cuban missile crisis and the 1973 crisis in the Middle East that could've led to WWIII, it presented a future where the USSR and US got by their brinksmanship and mankind found a way to peacefully coexist and progress without falling into the abyss and nearly self-destructing, first. We got through the Cold War unscathed. But even during the run of TOS, he gave in to a dystopian view of Earth's future. Maybe not the USSR and US, but in Roddenberry's future, mankind fell into the abyss (the Euenics Wars, WWIII, or whatever). So what happened to that message that mankind could avoid such wars? Turns out people like us in the 1960s did end up going to war. Even if it wasn't going to be the US or USSR trying to destroy the world, someone was still going to. Hundreds of years later though, things were OK. Well, some vision.

 

[fireproof78]

^^ Far as TNG post-season 3 goes I'm kind of a convert to Piller's being the great unsung hero. But all of that aside:

What we do know is many believe Abrams and his associates have been good and reasonable custodians of Roddenberry's creations and recommendations for what the characters needed to be and what a good Trek story needed to have.

They're as free to believe that as others are to disagree, I could just do without the embarrassing spectacle of professed NuTrekkies stumbling over each other to piss on Roddenberry's grave every time someone mentions his "vision" in a positive light.

Can everyone calm down a moment. It isn't "pissing on his grave" to question his role in the success of TNG, when he was not the first choice, his involvement is questionable as to what degree he is responsible for the show's success.

I have read, from a couple of different sources, that GR's involvement was limited in the first 3 seasons, that his lawyer was often an intermediary for story decisions, resulting in a falling out with David Gerrold from what I understand.

Also, financial success does not mean that Paramount execs were necessarily happy with GR's running of the franchise. Despite TMP's being a financial success, the powers that be did not like how over budget it was, and move Roddenberry off the film franchise with Benett taking over.

As BillJ said, is it pissing on the grave if we are acknowledging personal flaws and weaknesses as well as celebrating successes? I don't think anyone is saying that GR did not have a hand in Trek. Only questioning the assertion that without GR TNG would not have succeeded. Given that the show continued on for four years after GR's reported involvement, I think it is appropriate to be skeptical of how exactly TNG became a success.

 

[BigJake]

Blaspheming against the book of a drug-and drink-addled, misogynistic, philandering, conniving and scheming asshole isn't the worst thing in the world.

Yes, it's all been just about academic curiosity, clearly.

 

[Maurice]

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

I believe you dropped the word "maybe". There's no way of knowing if another showrunner's version would have been as good or better. TV history is littered with well intentioned shows that failed miserably.

 

[doubleohfive]

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

I believe you dropped the word "maybe". There's no way of knowing if another showrunner's version would have been as good or better. TV history is littered with well intentioned shows that failed miserably.

Agreed. There's just no way to be able to predict what TNG (or any other show, for that matter) would have been had someone else been in charge at the time it was conceived and produced. It's little more than wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.

 

[Dukhat]

I distinctly remember writing that this was my opinion. And in my opinion Roddenberry wasn't a necessary factor in the eventual success of TNG. In fact, as I stated earlier, if TNG was on a network, the show might have been prematurely cancelled.

 

[fireproof78]

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

I believe you dropped the word "maybe". There's no way of knowing if another showrunner's version would have been as good or better. TV history is littered with well intentioned shows that failed miserably.

Agreed. There's just no way to be able to predict what TNG (or any other show, for that matter) would have been had someone else been in charge at the time it was conceived and produced. It's little more than wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.

I trying to understand how speculation based upon known factors is "wishful thinking?"

I mean, I have seen plenty of "What if" threads, and have even heard Ron Moore speculate about what he would have done if he had been in charge of the more recent films.

There is great documentation about GR's involvement with TNG production, and the limits that were imposed upon by the "Roddenberry box," so it is not outside the realm of speculation or imagination to wonder how TNG might have been without those limits.

And the same could be said about the Abrams films. Obviously, Abrams idea of how to make a Trek movie is a hot button issue, and that many fans wished that someone else had done the films.

Also, I am tending towards agreeing with Dukhat that TNG may have been better without Roddenberry's involvement, and the restrictions he imposed.

But, YMMV

 

[BillJ]

Also, I am tending towards agreeing with Dukhat that TNG may have been better without Roddenberry's involvement, and the restrictions he imposed.

It would have likely been a better show if Roddenberry of '66 was involved. The one that existed before the "vision" non-sense started.

 

[Franklin]

In his 1987 writer's guide for TNG, Roddenberry did not want stories about warfare with Klingons or Romulans. Also, no stories with Vulcans. So much for "Unification 1" and "Unification 2".

He also did not want "mad scientists" or stories where technology was the villain. I don't know if Dr. Soong was mad, but he certainly was eccentric. Lore was villainous bad technology. So were the Borg, in a way, and they are considered by many as the biggest villains in TNG.

He also wanted the characters to stay true to the prime directive, something some fans accuse Picard of in the extreme.

As I ranted above, he wanted to show a future where mankind overcame differences and made it through the nuclear age without destroying each other. Then, in the first episode of TNG, he abandons all that and we find out we damn near did destroy ourselves in nuclear war before coming to our senses and beginning a slow and painful recovery. (If he didn't already abandon it to an extent all the way back in "Space Seed".)

 

[BillJ]

As I ranted above, he wanted to show a future where mankind overcame differences and made it through the nuclear age without destroying each other. Then, in the first episode of TNG, he abandons all that and we find out we damn near did destroy ourselves in nuclear war before coming to our senses and beginning a slow and painful recovery. (If he didn't already abandon it to an extent all the way back in "Space Seed".)

"Bread and Circuses" mentions a World War III where 37 million people died.

 

[M'Sharak]

Blaspheming against the book of a drug-and drink-addled, misogynistic, philandering, conniving and scheming asshole isn't the worst thing in the world.

Yes, it's all been just about academic curiosity, clearly.

Ah, don't be put off - that's just a sample of Timby's unique sledgehammer charm.

What we do know is many believe Abrams and his associates have been good and reasonable custodians of Roddenberry's creations and recommendations for what the characters needed to be and what a good Trek story needed to have.

They're as free to believe that as others are to disagree, I could just do without the embarrassing spectacle of professed NuTrekkies stumbling over each other to piss on Roddenberry's grave every time someone mentions his "vision" in a positive light.

I've got no particular interest in his grave, one way or the other, but there's an exaggerated reverence with which (imagine glitter text here, wordless chorale optional) Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ tends to be invoked by some that conveys a distinct sense of "zealous gleam in the eyes". I find that a bit unsettling in a strictly textual medium.

(Said invocation may or may not be accompanied by selected scriptural readings from the Whitfield Bible.)

 

[eyeresist]

Some posters seem to imagine they're battling some sort of Roddenberry-could-do-no-wrong cult. I don't think such a thing even exists! But he invented Trek, and was the source of the positive humanist sensibility that makes it unique. Do we value these things, or not?

 

[BigJake]

^ Yeah. Creepy reverence of Roddenberry is out there here and there, but I don't think KSoldier was guilty of it (the "book of Roddenberry" remark looked clearly tongue-in-cheek to me), and a little simple respect for what he accomplished isn't the same thing.

 

[fireproof78]

Some posters seem to imagine they're battling some sort of Roddenberry-could-do-no-wrong cult. I don't think such a thing even exists! But he invented Trek, and was the source of the positive humanist sensibility that makes it unique. Do we value these things, or not?

Is it that black and white? I mean, I value a positive message, but I don't think that it means that I cannot question how much GR is responsible for, and how much others helped him to that point.


I don't think that the OP is an adherent of such thinking about Roddenberry, but they can speak for themselves.

Beyond that, I appreciate what GR did to create Star Trek, but I also don't feel like he somehow gets all the credit and is above criticism. When Trek became his sacred vision that hey must impart to the masses it became too rigid for my liking.

Abrams Trek brought back a lot of the fun that was part of TOS, which is a positive thing to me.

 

[Franklin]

As I ranted above, he wanted to show a future where mankind overcame differences and made it through the nuclear age without destroying each other. Then, in the first episode of TNG, he abandons all that and we find out we damn near did destroy ourselves in nuclear war before coming to our senses and beginning a slow and painful recovery. (If he didn't already abandon it to an extent all the way back in "Space Seed".)

"Bread and Circuses" mentions a World War III where 37 million people died.

You're right. Then there's Col. Green in "The Savage Curtain", too.

------------------------

I don't think anyone here would say Roddenberry didn't come up with a great concept mostly on his own that caught fire and sparked the imaginations of a lot of people, especially those who added to Trek after him. He deserves great credit for that.

I don't think anyone here really buys into the "cult" of the Great Bird of the Galaxy because we're all too savvy for that. However, there does seem to be the question of a "vision," and the degree to which Trek has stuck to it post-Roddenberry (and during his reign).

As an Old-Trekkie, I've never bought into the "vision thing," to any degree, one way or the other. It doesn't exist to me. I respect Roddenberry's accomplishment along the lines of those who created other iconic TV characters and shows. I also appreciate the others who have refreshed it while keeping it recognizable.

The "vision" came about ex post facto, and its integrity is dubious at best. I wish it would just be put to rest. The propaganda helped sell the show to new audiences in syndication in the 1970s by painting it as something more important and deeper than it really may have been, but that isn't needed to enjoy the show or appreciate the creativeness of Roddenberry, today. It may even get in the way.