Why?
I think I deciphered what went wrong with new Star Trek. Rushing it to be Ronald D. Moore-esque.
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Why?
I have never heard anyone ever refer to Rodenberry as the "classical inherent racist". Certainly not Nichelle Nichols, who may have had an affair with the man. She has always been proud of her role on Star Trek.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...t-century-and-were-just-growing/#20da0021a523
Having slept with a black woman does not preclude being racist.
Im not going to try to take on internet callout culture and try to defend Gene Rodenberry. The man had many faults. If there is an underlying racism inherent in the original Star Trek I just don't see it. If the man was such a racist I don't see why he is so beloved by people who appreciate the fact that he put blacks on TV in positions of power, like Lt. Uhura.
Indeed. BSG is one of the view shows I turned off because it was so dark and depressing. It simply was not enjoyable for me.
I’m not a disciple of “Gene’s Vision”, so I’m not locked into the he was some kind of visionary non-sense. He was a man who clearly made many mistakes.
Im not going to try to take on internet callout culture and try to defend Gene Rodenberry. The man had many faults. If there is an underlying racism inherent in the original Star Trek I just don't see it. If the man was such a racist I don't see why he is so beloved by people who appreciate the fact that he put blacks on TV in positions of power, like Lt. Uhura.
In a sense I agree with you, he did indeed put people of colour on television and that is something which should be genuinely applauded.
He did, however, go on to develop something of a messiah complex to say the least and a lot of that was tied into a legacy which grew out of all proportion to the reality. What's more that complex was entirely in fitting with the politics on display in TOS where Kirk and co would be the heroes guiding, enlightening and protecting the cultures they visited. In many ways he seems to have viewed them as proxies for himself (or even vica versa), a wise and advanced white man raising the savage out of the squalor of primitivism.
You saying Gene was the original Mary Sue?!
I think he'd be quite happy with that idea....
Nothing went wrong with the latest entries of Star Trek!!!
Last edited:
I did enjoy nuBSG, but I won't think less of someone who did not. There are actually a fair number of ideas that can be identified as having originated in Moore's time on Star Trek. James Callis has said that his Baltar was Bashir done right. However, nuBSG clearly has different underpinning that Star Trek--underpinnings that Discovery clearly has. Indeed, it is probably more optimistic than Enterprise.
Indeed.
There is an underlying assumption written into the OP, that there is a problem which needs to be explained.
That's the assumption with a lot of new Trek, that it is somehow problematic with its vision.
There's nothing wrong with the new Star Trek.
Just because it doesn't appeal to you because it's different than what was presented in previous versions doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it just means you don't care for it.
Exactly, the problem I have being that the "vision" people ascribe to the original is by and large a myth anyway.
Indeed. For such a problematic show, it's spawned 4 seasons, spin-off shorts, a spin-off Section 31 series, a rumoured spin-off Pike series, and kickstarted the Star Trek Universe of shows which includes the Next Gen follow-up, Picard.
I thought Ronald D. Moore was one of the best screenwriters Berman-era Trek ever had. There was certainly no need for some self-appointed disciples of his to insert his ideas, themes and tropes into the franchise; they've been there all along. If anything, his contributions actually made the setting more believable and palatable after the horrid eighties-neon-new-age lotus-eater machine the first two seasons of TNG had devolved into. Just like how Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett brought a much needed course correction after TMP.
Whatever some fans think "Gene's Vision" might be (and more often not it's just a projection of their personal feelings and nostalgia about the Trek they grew up with), it's quite telling that Star Trek has always been very quick to bring in fresh new blood every time Gene has been left to his own devices for a bit.
Whatever some fans think "Gene's Vision" might be (and more often not it's just a projection of their personal feelings and nostalgia about the Trek they grew up with), it's quite telling that Star Trek has always been very quick to bring in fresh new blood every time Gene has been left to his own devices for a bit.
GR's true/original "vision" when Star Trek was on the air:
1 - $$
2 - (.)(.) on a casting couch.
^^^
That's about how far GR's "Vision" every actually went in reality. The rest was all pandering and some absolute BS (like the REAL reason the NBC suits didn't want Majel Barrett in a lead role was BECAUSE she was the Executive Producer's mistress and the show if greenlit would be EXPENSIVE and Hollywood hookups usually didn't last; not because the character was a female.
Or the idea that it was GR's original idea to have a multi-racial cast when it was ACTUALLY NBC's - they wanted it for all there shows because advertisers were finding a lot of minorities were buying TV sets and watching. Just look at how 'multi-racial' TOS - "The Cage" was for GR's 'original' vision.)
Yeah, but aside from all that it's an undeniable failure. Midnight's Edge told me so.
"The Cage" is the proof in the visionary pudding.
Similar threads
