How much of early TNG was GR's?

[BillJ]

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

Not my personal choice. But I think it is an eventuality.

 

[wulfio]

I never insinuated there isn't a backlash...

 

[Nebusj]

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.

And to be fair to the hostile portion of pre-season-3/4 Trek fandom, ``The Outrageous Okona''.

 

[Treadwell]

IIn a lot of early TNG I can see ideas espoused by David Gerrold as far back as his writings in his book The World Of Star Trek published back in the '70s.

Yup, that was the publication where Gerrold complained about the illogic of sending the most important officer out on dangerous landing parties. I thought of him immediately when I saw that addressed in the TNG bible (and I don't recall even knowing at the time Gerrold was involved).

 

[T'Girl]

^ If you're not going to send important and difficult to replace people on landing parties, then why is the first officer going?

Sometimes sure, but the majority of the time wouldn't they be lead by a science or security officer?

 

[Warped9]

^ If you're not going to send important and difficult to replace people on landing parties, then why is the first officer going?

Sometimes sure, but the majority of the time wouldn't they be lead by a science or security officer?

Ideally, yes.

 

[Christopher]

^ If you're not going to send important and difficult to replace people on landing parties, then why is the first officer going?

Sometimes sure, but the majority of the time wouldn't they be lead by a science or security officer?

Gerrold's original proposal was to have a set of characters who would be the "contact team," the frontline junior officers who were first into danger. But having them as regulars along with the bridge crew would've been too large and expensive a cast, probably, so having the first officer and the rest of the bridge crew constitute the away teams and just leaving the captain behind was the compromise they reached, I'd guess.

Although I don't know why they didn't just make the contact team the main characters and have the captain and bridge crew be supporting characters -- pretty much what Stargate SG-1 did later on. I guess they were too attached to the established Trek formula where the commanding officer is the main character.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

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

I thought Roddenberry was the one who told them to scrap the idea.

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

Agreed.

I don't really see the point of spend all of your time on boring old future Earth when there is a whole galaxy to run around having adventures in.

Yup, that was the publication where Gerrold complained about the illogic of sending the most important officer out on dangerous landing parties.

I figured it was becuase the captain is the main character and as such should be where the actual plot is taking place.

Although I don't know why they didn't just make the contact team the main characters and have the captain and bridge crew be supporting characters -- pretty much what Stargate SG-1 did later on. I guess they were too attached to the established Trek formula where the commanding officer is the main character.

That or the fact that they don't get to do space battle type plots if the cast is a bunch of low rankers who aren't on the bridge.

 

[Jedman67]

And every time an uncredited extra goes on an away team, we know who's not coming back (granted, far less frequently on TNG than TOS....)

 

[Mudd]

I think GR's wish was to avoid petty conflict -- to have the characters be mature enough not to have the usual lazy soap-opera conflicts arising from petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, stupid misunderstandings, and the like...

In other words, not to be like living, real human beings.

 

[Relayer1]

How much ?

Too much.

 

[JesterFace]

I think GR's wish was to avoid petty conflict -- to have the characters be mature enough not to have the usual lazy soap-opera conflicts arising from petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, stupid misunderstandings, and the like...

In other words, not to be like living, real human beings.

I think it's fine if the characters is a show or a movie don't have jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, stupid misunderstandings and all that, that happens enough in real life, no reason to watch it from TV.

 

[wulfio]

I think GR's wish was to avoid petty conflict -- to have the characters be mature enough not to have the usual lazy soap-opera conflicts arising from petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, stupid misunderstandings, and the like...

In other words, not to be like living, real human beings.

I literally only know 1 person(who unfortunately is family that I can't just cut out) that acts with petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, or gets all bent over stupid misunderstandings, etc. From my experience, ambitious, mentally stable adults generally have better things to do with their life than act like high school kids.

And that really goes hand in hand with GR's vision of the future.

 

[Christopher]

In other words, not to be like living, real human beings.

I literally only know 1 person(who unfortunately is family that I can't just cut out) that acts with petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, or gets all bent over stupid misunderstandings, etc. From my experience, ambitious, mentally stable adults generally have better things to do with their life than act like high school kids.

Yes. "Real human beings" are not all the same. Human nature encompasses everything from Hitler to Gandhi. We have the potential to be more than a bunch of petty, juvenile jerks; we just have to apply ourselves to becoming that. People who behave with decency, maturity, and self-control are no less human than people who are obnoxious, rude, petty, selfish, and mean. They're just more grown up.

 

[wulfio]

In other words, not to be like living, real human beings.

I literally only know 1 person(who unfortunately is family that I can't just cut out) that acts with petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, or gets all bent over stupid misunderstandings, etc. From my experience, ambitious, mentally stable adults generally have better things to do with their life than act like high school kids.

Yes. "Real human beings" are not all the same. Human nature encompasses everything from Hitler to Gandhi. We have the potential to be more than a bunch of petty, juvenile jerks; we just have to apply ourselves to becoming that. People who behave with decency, maturity, and self-control are no less human than people who are obnoxious, rude, petty, selfish, and mean. They're just more grown up.

I agree 100%. And in Star Trek, GR was obviously determined to depict a human civilization that exemplified those positive traits.

 

[Phantom]

I think GR's wish was to avoid petty conflict -- to have the characters be mature enough not to have the usual lazy soap-opera conflicts arising from petty jealousy, resentment, dishonesty, stupid misunderstandings, and the like...

In other words, not to be like living, real human beings.

No, in other words to be like mature human beings who don't let their personal foibles fester to the point of being self-destructive, and absolutely don't let them get in the way of their working together to get done what needs doing.

I note in that in that version of the bible that they had already dropped the idea of the ship as a self-mobile starbase, as well as the idea of the "twenty-year mission" in deep space.