How much of early TNG was GR's?

[Christopher]

Ah, but those other shows didn't have Roddenberry's direct involvement. They were all "based on", which I suspect is the key difference.

Joss Whedon was directly involved in Angel, but David Greenwalt still got creator credit along with him. Garry Marshall was directly involved in Laverne & Shirley, but he still shared creator credit with Lowell Ganz and Mark Rothman. There is absolutely no reason why the original creator's direct involvement in a spinoff should exclude the spinoff's other creators from getting their rightful credit. TNG was an anomalous case.

 

[Maurice]

The format and a lot of the particulars of TNG were the same as Star Trek. The other shows cited spun off characters but not the series format. And no one's arguing that Roddenberry deserved the credit he got.

 

[Warped9]

The original question could be seen as not specific enough. TNG shares a lot with TOS in its general and basic elements. Mind you if you want to get really picky there are elements of TOS that weren't GR's idea but someone else's (such Starfleet and the Klingons and others), but I gues GR is credited with those under a sort of creative umbrella.

 

[JesterFace]

How much of early TNG was GR's?

Basically, everything, there would be no TNG without Gene.

And not just early TNG, in a way he helped creating everything that came out of the beginning by creating the Trek universe and inspiring people to continue that story.

 

[Christopher]

How much of early TNG was GR's?

Basically, everything, there would be no TNG without Gene.

There very well might have been. I don't think Paramount originally wanted his involvement. He didn't want to do more Trek himself until he learned that Paramount was developing a sequel series without him, and then he insisted that he had to be the one to do it.

And not just early TNG, in a way he helped creating everything that came out of the beginning by creating the Trek universe and inspiring people to continue that story.

But he wasn't the solo auteur that the Roddenberry myth alleges. He always benefited from the input of his collaborators such as Herb Solow, Bob Justman, John D.F. Black, etc., and from the freelancers who contributed so many of the series' ideas. Paul Schneider invented the Romulans, Gene L. Coon invented the Klingons, Theodore Sturgeon and D.C. Fontana are responsible for most of what we know about the Vulcans, etc.

 

[JesterFace]

There very well might have been.

Maybe, but in what form? Not in the way we look at it now, good thing Gene was involved.

And not just early TNG, in a way he helped creating everything that came out of the beginning by creating the Trek universe and inspiring people to continue that story.

But he wasn't the solo auteur that the Roddenberry myth alleges. He always benefited from the input of his collaborators such as Herb Solow, Bob Justman, John D.F. Black, etc.

Well, that is continuing the story

 

[Christopher]

There very well might have been.

Maybe, but in what form? Not in the way we look at it now, good thing Gene was involved.

Was it a good thing, though? Roddenberry was in poor health and addicted to drugs, and under the control of his reportedly rapacious lawyer Leonard Maizlish. To all indications, early TNG was made worse as a result of Roddenberry's poor choices and the actions Maizlish took in his name -- rewriting scripts without the right or talent to do so, enforcing an absolutist "no conflict" policy that even Roddenberry himself had problems with, alienating David Gerrold and other producers and driving them away from the show, etc. TNG didn't become a solid, effective show until Roddenberry's influence was minimized and Michael Piller took creative control. TNG might've been a better show from the start if it had been made without Roddenberry's involvement, or if he'd been merely a creative consultant from the start.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

There very well might have been.

Maybe, but in what form? Not in the way we look at it now, good thing Gene was involved.

One of the pre-Roddenberry proposals, according to David Alexander's biography, was about a group of cadets. Shades of Star Trek II, I guess.

A non-Roddenberry series wouldn't have been much of anything like we got, but it probably would have been just as accepted by fandom and, ultimately, just as popular.

 

[Christopher]

One of the pre-Roddenberry proposals, according to David Alexander's biography, was about a group of cadets. Shades of Star Trek II, I guess.

Sounds more like the Starfleet Academy idea that Harve Bennett pitched, though that would've been about young Kirk & Spock.

It's also reminiscent of the initial late-'60s proposal for a Filmation animated series. That version would've been a companion piece to TOS and focused on a team of teenage cadets, each of whom had a corresponding mentor among the TOS core cast.

A non-Roddenberry series wouldn't have been much of anything like we got, but it probably would have been just as accepted by fandom and, ultimately, just as popular.

It's worth remembering that a fair-sized portion of fandom was hostile to TNG at first, refusing to accept it as the real thing. It wasn't until season 3 or so that the resistance died down. I've seen "The Best of Both Worlds" cited as the event that finally silenced the doubters.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Paramount didn't care about GR's ego trip, they wanted a hit. That's every motivation to make whatever show they're making good.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

However, one way to establish authorship, and that all-important "Created by" credit, is to write the pilot AND the show bible. Part of me suspects that Roddenberry massively rewrote Farpoint and pushed Gerrold out in order to put his stamp on both pilot and bible to make certain that he didn't have to share the "Created by", and all the money that goes with that, with others.

Although he should've had to share it anyway. Per WGA rules (which I looked up the last time this came up), there are two main ways to get creator credit: To write the series bible or to be the credited writer of the pilot script. Gerrold co-wrote the bible and D.C. Fontana is credited as the co-writer of the pilot, so one or both of them were entitled to creator credit alongside Roddenberry. The fact that they got denied it is highly irregular. I read that the WGA's reason for giving him sole creator credit is that TNG was derived from the original Star Trek, but that doesn't fit the pattern of other spinoffs like the later Trek shows, The Bionic Woman, Angel, Stargate Atlantis, and the like, which all give creator credit to their own developers rather than just the parent shows' creators. Roddenberry was certainly entitled to creator credit for TNG, but he should've shared it with Gerrold and/or Fontana.

There's one factor to consider when it comes to the ousting of Gerrold and Fontana.

According to "Chaos on the Bridge," Mazlish's wrangled a legal deal for Paramount to pay back Roddenberry all the past royalties owed on all of "Star Trek." So there was a serious attempt to wrestle more and more control of "Star Trek" back to Roddenberry that extend past TNG.

There very well might have been. I don't think Paramount originally wanted his involvement. He didn't want to do more Trek himself until he learned that Paramount was developing a sequel series without him, and then he insisted that he had to be the one to do it.

As Allyn Gibson states, there were other ideas developed by Paramount Television before Roddenberry's involvement.

But then-Paramount Studios President John Pike (no relation to Christopher Pike) realized how important Roddenberry's name would be to securing the fanbase, according to "Chaos on the Bridge."

Paramount cut a deal to open their financial books in order to lure Roddenberry back into the fold. Of course, that also opened the door to Mazlish getting into everything.

But he wasn't the solo auteur that the Roddenberry myth alleges. He always benefited from the input of his collaborators such as Herb Solow, Bob Justman, John D.F. Black, etc., and from the freelancers who contributed so many of the series' ideas. Paul Schneider invented the Romulans, Gene L. Coon invented the Klingons, Theodore Sturgeon and D.C. Fontana are responsible for most of what we know about the Vulcans, etc.

Very good point to reiterate. It's something Trekkies tend to dismiss or forget in favor of the Roddenberry auteur myth.

The original "Star Trek" was a collaborative effort that resulted in something magical, that looked like nothing else on TV at the time.

 

[Christopher]

There's one factor to consider when it comes to the ousting of Gerrold and Fontana.

According to "Chaos on the Bridge," Mazlish's wrangled a legal deal for Paramount to pay back Roddenberry all the past royalties owed on all of "Star Trek." So there was a serious attempt to wrestle more and more control of "Star Trek" back to Roddenberry that extend past TNG.

That's what I figured, and it seems as ethically questionable as a lot of the other things Maizlish has been accused of. Without that legal wrangling, TNG probably would've had a shared creator credit.

As Allyn Gibson states, there were other ideas developed by Paramount Television before Roddenberry's involvement.

I'd be curious to know more about them.

 

[wulfio]

I have a hard time imagining Starfleet Academy being as popular as TNG was. The kids would have probably liked it. I'm sure the old trek audience would have accepted less than they did TNG.

 

[BillJ]

I have a hard time imagining Starfleet Academy being as popular as TNG was. The kids would have probably liked it. I'm sure the old trek audience would have accepted less than they did TNG.

Like anything else, execution would've been huge. Though Roddenberry had been pitching the cadet idea as far back as TAS.

 

[Christopher]

I have a hard time imagining Starfleet Academy being as popular as TNG was. The kids would have probably liked it. I'm sure the old trek audience would have accepted less than they did TNG.

Depends on the execution. Look at how well Buffy the Vampire Slayer did. Or Teen Wolf more recently. Or, heck, Glee. Lots of successful shows have had academic settings.

An Academy series would've had the logistical and budgetary advantage of being set largely on Earth, so there wouldn't have been as much need to create alien landscapes, except on training missions.

And hey -- an Academy show would've actually been a much better fit to the subtitle The Next Generation.

 

[wulfio]

I don't mean to say an academy setting wouldn't succeed. I mean to say that I think the backlash by the core Trek fans would have been bigger for an academy show than it was for TNG.

 

[BillJ]

I don't mean to say an academy setting wouldn't succeed. I mean to say that I think the backlash by the core Trek fans would have been bigger for an academy show than it was for TNG.

There's always a backlash. Probably better that there is as it gets some folks interested in what the hubbub is.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I don't mean to say an academy setting wouldn't succeed. I mean to say that I think the backlash by the core Trek fans would have been bigger for an academy show than it was for TNG.

There's always a backlash.

There's one constant among Trekkies — there's always backlash with every new Trek venture.

 

[Warped9]

From the beginning I hated the academy idea. I'm glad it wasn't done.

 

[Christopher]

There's always a backlash.

Yup. Like I said, there was an intense backlash against the TNG we got. Star Trek without Kirk, Spock, and McCoy? Unthinkable!