I didn't at all mean that the topic was unworthy of discussion (seriously).
I just wanted to express my feelings on the topic, that sometimes fans or segments of the fandom put far too much stock in "what would Gene have thought / said / wanted?"
How would Roddenberry rank his canon?
- Thread starter Falconer
- Start date
I didn't at all mean that the topic was unworthy of discussion (seriously).
I just wanted to express my feelings on the topic, that sometimes fans or segments of the fandom put far too much stock in "what would Gene have thought / said / wanted?"
Roddenberry was big on the "savage alien needing the savior of the Federation to rescue them". That showed up in a lot of his story ideas and concepts and is so supremely condescending that if he hadn't been removed as a factor from TNG by season 3 I doubt TNG would have survived, to say nothing of DS9 and Voyager.
Well, that’s a pretty negative way to put it. I think if you’re going to do a story juxtaposing two societies, and one society is going to show the other society a better way, it could be the aliens teaching the Federation or it could be the Federation teaching the aliens. Either approach sheds light on problems in our current society through effective conflict-based storytelling. The latter approach is just more optimistic, is all. It says humanity will overcome this problem, though it will naturally still come into conflict with other societies have not. Unfortunately, too many people can’t even imagine that humanity can improve. That’s where I applaud Roddenberry.
Okay..so..beyond the Organians and Vulcans...which society did Roddenberry portray the Federation as encountering that was not inherently inferior in terms of technology, behavior, morals or traditions? Both in TOS and his tenure as TNG show runner
Can you provide some examples? On TNG The Picard and the Enterprise seemed to go out of their way not to interfere with less developed civilizations.
I'd say one of Roddenberry's strengths was that he was willing to delegate and select people to help him develop shows, even with TOS (Coon and Justman), maybe that was the producer in him. He certainly didn't disappear up his own ass the way Lucas did once surrounded with "yes" men.
I also think that people started taking advantage of him towards the end to push their own agendas, particularly Arnold and Maizlish.
Up the Long Ladder, 2X18: The Bringloidi are not only treated as inferior but also are racist Irish portrayals (drunkards, slothful, dirty and the typical attractive daughter of Brenna is just oh so sexually interested in the dashing modern Riker).
Lonely Among Us, 1X07: The Antica and Selay are portrayed as simple, brutal, violent and cruel. This is where
Riker pops off with his "we no longer enslave animals for food" line.
Literally everything with the Ferengi
Certainly "NCC 1701-D" shows some acknowledgement that TVH has validity, as it follows from NCC-1701-A.
But not necessarily TFF or TUC.
Well, to be completely fair, I don't think Roddenberry considered all of TUC apocryphal, just some of the more militaristic elements. I don't think he liked Colonel West for instance. And the fact that Starfleet officers would betray the Federation (however, on that point, I think he could be convinced that individuals might do that as long as Starfleet as a whole did not betray the Federation--Hell, Roddenberry himself wrote some episodes where Starfleet officers went to the dark side--Captain Tracy in "The Omega Glory"--so had he lived longer I think with the right argument he might accept that of TUC). TFF, I have heard he considered that apocryphal at times. But then even Nicholas Meyer largely ignored TFF (though technically there's nothing that really contradicts TFF that I saw).
But that's one of the reasons why it's difficult to say what he would consider canon because sometimes he changed his own mind.
TOS wouldn't have been in Gene R.'s canon anymore. TNG was his attempt to thematically reboot and redefine the Trek universe, downplaying TOS's existence by refusing to bring back familiar alien species, while simultaneously attempting to one-up and undermine its storied legacy by rehashing its story ideas and presenting them in 1980s fashion, implying that "this is how it's really done." Even at the time of TMP, in his novelization he was kicking TOS to the curb by describing what we saw in the series as a bunch of exaggerated, larger-than-life "tall tale" versions of how things actually occurred in-universe.
Kor
Kor
So, as the movie you've seen, as is, just swapping Cattrall for Alley would have bestowed magic??? I doubt it and it wouldn't have been a shock because it was evident throughout the movie Spock's successor was the traitor. Also, there would have to be some backstory to build the foundation in order for it to work which the script, as it was, couldn't deliver the shock value. Alley's Saavik was a completely different character in comparison to Valeris. Curtis Saavik was fine and still within reach of TFF, so her being cast would've been okay but having her as the traitor wouldn't give me any impact either.
It's Trek tradition. He created Trek and gave it some of it's vision and maybe even helped keep it popular by allowing himself to sort of elevate the show into something even bigger back in those days when the fandom was still growing. Don't ever underestimate how much value you can get from a good salesman.
Jason
Except the Anticans give the same retort to Riker and Yar as to what they believe what barbarism is -- synthetic food, noting that a lot of today's synthetic alternatives have articles coming out saying "Hang on a minute" due to unhealthy oils, ingredients, and/or processing methods some of those artificial meat substitutes have in our real world. Is that any less barbaric? Never mind amino acids that are not always found in plants or pills... The way Eddington was pretending to be a TV show cook over those freshly picked veggies as if anyone can grow an acre in a window sill plant pot) pretty much put the spin on synthetic taste-nothings, as had Scotty in the otherwise ageist-stereotype "Relics" also spat at. Then again "The Neutral Zone" had the guy that reminds me of my pickled ex going all ape-bleep crazy over the ersatz-martini too... but I don't think all that was fathomed in 1987 when the script was written or rewrote by Gene's indulgences, of which "Justice" is one of the more controversial ones with what he made into his planet of the oily orgies and all...
I haven't read up so I don't know who used Irish stereotypes as a crutch in "Ladder" (and I'm part Irish FWIW, and part British FWIW too, why can't my name be Romero FWIW?), but all I had seen on initial viewing were a very advanced branch of the same species as the one that eschewed technology (like that 1998 TNG movie only done far better despite its issues, including standby hornball Riker at everyone's service...)
The Ferengi... DS9 with Armin Shimmerman spearheading the renovating saved the day for them. Armin Shimmerman had far more to do with turning them into a species of depth than anyone else. Even TNG season 3-7 didn't know what to do with them. Quark was brought to life and then some. Clearly not an easy task!! DS9 may have gone against Gene's bible about the Federation should always be good and all that (can't blame him TBH), but DS9's good definitely did for the Ferengi what TNG never could or was allowed to. And the show being gray area, Sisko could easily do what Picard and even Kirk would not. They weren't put into the same situations.
Yes. There would be the gravitas of Savik's character and the weight of her prior history of ST II & III brought to bear and cashed in on. All that trust and affection she had built up. Especially factoring in Saavik's melding with Spock to get him through ponn far in III and then flipping the script and having Spock rip the necessary information out of her in VI ... WOW! That sequence would have been second only to Spock's death scene in TWoK. Would have taken things up at least 2 full notches!
I will take the opposite view. Too much of the plot of TUC is weak and nonsensical—the reason the Klingons were forced to make peace, the undue emphasis on Kirk & co.’s supposed bigotry, and the Conspiracy most of all. I think most people are willing to overlook these points and go along for the ride precisely BECAUSE the whole traitor reveal lacks oomph. Valeris is someone you’ve never thought about before the movie, barely think about during the movie, and never think about again after the movie. For them to have trashed the character of Saavik just to serve this weak plot would have really made people throw the whole movie in the dustbin.
There's a Twitter account that has some historical Star Trek documents, including some Rodenberry memos dating from the third season of TNG. He clearly had some artistic concerns which guided his thought process.
https://mobile.twitter.com/trekdocs/status/922891535158595584/photo/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/trekdocs/status/922891535158595584/photo/1
I'd say that Roddenberry was at the very least familiar with the general surroundings of his own hindquarters. The dude believed his own press an awful lot.
It would've been a whole lot less obvious if it wasn't a completely new character. Saavik being the traitor would've had a real element of surprise, because most Trek fans would never see it coming.
Exactly. And the whole "A lie?" / "An error" callback to TWOK's "You lied" / "I exaggerated" exchange would've made a lot more sense and had more bite. Hell, if it had been Saavik, we probably would've gotten a whole Star Trek novel exploring what Saavik was doing between Star Treks IV and VI and showing how she went from loyal Starfleet officer to a traitor.
MAN, do I wish I could look in on the parallel universe where Kirstie Alley returned to the role!
I will say Star Trek films (all of them - especially the JJ Abrams installments to an absurd degree) do gloss over somethings to get from "A" to "B" to "C" however that doesn't equate to it being "weak" and definitely not "nonsensical." Star Trek VI was a light thriller and told a story worth telling very well - films must be looked at, in part, within the context of the time in which it was produced. The Undiscovered Country was extremely relevant when it came out due to the recent break up the U.S.S.R. and a big part of the relevancy stemmed from "Kirk & co." realizing their bigotry and then overcoming it. That "bigotry" was rooted in their TOS adventures as well as the events of ST III so it most certainly lent the weight and integrity of Star Trek's internal his history. So, while you are free to view things however you wish, there is nothing objective by which to support your complaints. As I see it anyway.
Similar threads
