Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

[Harvey]

Most of what is in the book is supported by interviews with other figures or production documents (the authors, in fact, go to great lengths to reproduce as many materials from the production as they can fit into the book). I don't think there's much in terms of "allegations" that Gene Roddenberry could have shed further light upon. If anything, his death meant that somebody could finally write a book that viewed him with a little less than outright adulation. And, considering the lengths Justman in particular goes to laud Gene Roddenberry as a "visionary," it's hardly a hatchet-job or a work of "cowardice."

 

[Christopher]

I felt Inside Star Trek was very balanced and fair in its portrayal of Roddenberry, acknowledging his gifts and his flaws. What would be suspect would be portraying a human being as saintly and flawless, because nobody is devoid of failings and weaknesses.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The fact that they waited till after his passing to write that book makes the content suspect and to be honest, was a little cowardly.

Neither, actually. Solow was actually having a life and career that had not a thing to do with Star Trek; Justman remained a friend of Roddenberry's throughout his life.

If you want hagiography there's always "Star Trek Creator" by David Alexander; Roddenberry comes off as the closest thing to God that a good "secular humanist" like Alexander could ever hope to meet.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ Even that one admits to a few of GR's failings, just to maintain the air of credibility.

Best bet is to read all of the books, even Shatner's. That should cover as many gaps as possible.

 

[Maurice]

.... I must admit that the Talosian subterranean archways looked Krell inspired, although they were more pentagon shaped (in "FP" the Krell archways were much more squat, emphasizing triangular).

Actually, the Krell doorway shapes are squares tilted 45 degrees with the bottom third lopped off.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Actually, the Krell doorway shapes are squares tilted 45 degrees with the bottom third lopped off.

Good eye!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The problem with books by actors is that they're pretty much mushrooms - they can tell personal anecdotes about their interactions with producers, etc. but most everything they think they know about management and budget decisions is hearsay and exaggeration, at best repeated with a certain flair.

 

[mb22]

Just keep in mind this book was written after Roddenberry's death...and therefore Gene would have no way of responding to the allegations.

The fact that they waited till after his passing to write that book makes the content suspect and to be honest, was a little cowardly.

The bok was published two years after Joel Engel's negative 1994 bio Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek (and other Roddenberry myth-busting writings ). At this point, I don't think it mattered, especially as it was much more positive than the Engel book.

 

[Noname Given]

Just keep in mind this book was written after Roddenberry's death...and therefore Gene would have no way of responding to the allegations.

The fact that they waited till after his passing to write that book makes the content suspect and to be honest, was a little cowardly.

More likely, they didn't want gene's lawyer getting involved; and as other sources have emerged SHOWING that GR was VERY MUCH embelishing a lot of both his contributions to Star Trek, etc. in the 1970ies and 1980ies; some of which I heard first hand as he came to our University and showed the TOS blooper reels (on 16mm film); I tend to think were he alive; he'd not like to see his 'stories' contradicted.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's nothing cowardly about telling the truth.

You want to read a book where some angry sources are permitted to grind their axes, read Engels' bio.

 

[Therin of Andor]

More likely, they didn't want gene's lawyer getting involved

IIRC, Leonard Maizlish didn't last much longer than Gene.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^Which is something we should all be grateful for...

 

[Josie]

I've loved listening to this.

Though one thing lately that has really p*ssed me off in regards Gene Roddenberry is the fact that he blamed working on Star Trek and the long hours for the failure of his marriage at the time.

Of course it couldn't have been the mistress you were shagging continually in which she only lived walking distance and who you would often stay with could it Gene? Or what about always trying it on with the female guest stars. That definitely would not have factored in.

He is never truthful and always seems to lie. The more I hear about him, the more I loathe him. Yes he helped create Star Trek, but that doesn't mean anything.

Oh, and please no telling me that he was a flawed human trying his best. That doesn't wash. Always an excuse for everything.

 

[Botany Bay]

I'd have to agree with you, Josie.

Twenty years ago I saw him as a wise, grandfatherly figure, a genius before his time.

But, at this point, after reading so much about him, my only feeling about him is that he is someone I would go out of my way to avoid having dealings with.

He got what he wanted : women and money, but at the end of the day all you have is your reputation, and his is not one I'd be proud of as my legacy.

For a while I suspected the pendulum had swung a little too far to the anti-Roddenberry camp, but nobody has come out to defend him since the stories about Roddenberry's dealings came out in the mid 90's.

The most people seem to concede is that he could be incredibly charming when he wanted something, but would have no qualms about burning a loyal friendship or screwing someone over if it fattened his wallet.

He seemed to burn every bridge he crossed, and few who worked with him remember him fondly.

Sad.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Well, a few things you can't take away from him: he was a brilliant producer, great at coming up with the big concepts (not so much in the finer details of making those concepts work) and at solving problems that would leave other producers dumbfounded, and probably better at rewriting others' scripts than cooking up his own stories.

 

[Josie]

^ If he was such a brilliant producer why was he taken off Star Trek twice by suits?

Why did he allow the conflict with Gates McFadden to fester and turn ugly?

Why do most people who worked with him have not very flattering memories of him?

Why did he screw people out of money?

There is more to being a good producer than simply getting the product out. Great at coming up with the big concepts? Which concepts, most of what he tried to pass off as his own was written by someone else, either through his staff or already published work.

He was good at rewriting others work and turning it to Star Trek specs.

Captain Robert April, what were these problems that would leave other producers dumbfounded but not Roddenberry?

 

[RandyS]

I'd have to agree with you, Josie.

Twenty years ago I saw him as a wise, grandfatherly figure, a genius before his time.

But, at this point, after reading so much about him, my only feeling about him is that he is someone I would go out of my way to avoid having dealings with.

He got what he wanted : women and money, but at the end of the day all you have is your reputation, and his is not one I'd be proud of as my legacy.

For a while I suspected the pendulum had swung a little too far to the anti-Roddenberry camp, but nobody has come out to defend him since the stories about Roddenberry's dealings came out in the mid 90's.

The most people seem to concede is that he could be incredibly charming when he wanted something, but would have no qualms about burning a loyal friendship or screwing someone over if it fattened his wallet.

He seemed to burn every bridge he crossed, and few who worked with him remember him fondly.

Sad.

The irony for me is, Roddenberry's life mirrors that of my own father. A man I have never had any respect for.

 

[Gary7]

^ I think Robert April hit the nail on the head. Gene was a "big idea" guy and not very skilled at the minutia of details. Sure, he could rewrite a story and make it fit within budget/time allotted, but some of his story ideas were just plain silly. Another decent "big idea" was Andromeda. But somebody else had to take the concept and develop it into reality.

As for problem solving, he was certainly very good at finding the right people to make things happen. I once knew a man such as him. Others revered him as a "genius" because of his amazing ideas, but somehow they'd never fully develop well. He'd find great talent to enact his ideas, but then he'd muddy the waters, stifling the direction of success, take credit for other people's ideas, but then just as soon disown them if they didn't make it. Just like Gene.

He was an egotistical womanizer, and pretty much a narcissist. Very self centered. He rarely thought outside the box and considered the feelings of others. If anything ever did appear to look like caring, it was surely tied to some self-benefit he had in mind. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have enjoyed having a dinner conversation with him. I'd much prefer somebody like Solow, Justman, or Jefferies.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"I didn't build this ship so I could travel to the stars. I don't even like to fly! I take trains to get around! You wanna know why I built this ship? MONEY. Dollar signs! I built it so that I could retire to some tropical island surrounded by naked women! That's Doctor Cochrane's dream! That's his vision! This other guy you keep talking about? I never even met him!"

 

[Christopher]

Another decent "big idea" was Andromeda. But somebody else had to take the concept and develop it into reality.

Actually Andromeda was retooled from an idea Roddenberry did execute twice, as the pilot movies Genesis II and Planet Earth. Majel Roddenberry's producing partners and showrunner Robert Hewitt Wolfe, with input from Kevin Sorbo, took the Genesis II/Dylan Hunt concept, retooled it as a space show (at Sorbo's request), threw in the idea of an intelligent starship from an unsold Roddenberry premise called Starship (which I believe was the original source of the Matt Jefferies "ringship" design), and mixed it together with some of Wolfe's ideas for a hypothetical post-apocalyptic Star Trek series he'd mused about.

A better example would be Tribune's previous Roddenberry-inspired series, Earth: Final Conflict. That was based on an actual Roddenberry pilot script called Battleground Earth, and in fact its pilot episode gave Roddenberry sole writing credit, even though the script and concept were revised by E:FC's developer Richard C. Okie. In GR's original version, the aliens were more malevolent, which was too similar to V, so Okie adjusted things to make their motives more ambiguous.

As for problem solving, he was certainly very good at finding the right people to make things happen. I once knew a man such as him. Others revered him as a "genius" because of his amazing ideas, but somehow they'd never fully develop well. He'd find great talent to enact his ideas, but then he'd muddy the waters, stifling the direction of success, take credit for other people's ideas, but then just as soon disown them if they didn't make it. Just like Gene.

True -- GR did gather good people around him, at least in his prime. Gene Coon, Bob Justman, D. C. Fontana, Matt Jefferies, Bill Theiss, Fred Phillips, etc. -- it was the whole team that made TOS great (including the cast and the freelance writers too). And he had a good team for TNG too -- Justman, Fontana, David Gerrold -- but unfortunately by that point his judgment wasn't as great and he'd gathered a couple of other people around him (Richard Arnold, Leonard Maizlish) who were, shall we say, not team players and ended up driving the others away. (I often wonder what TNG would've been like if it had been Justman, Fontana, and Gerrold who stayed and the others who left, instead of the reverse.)