NBC/CBS irony

[JonnyQuest037]

That's basically it. We don't know the real story. We don't even know if it's true. All we have are personal accounts of things that may or may not have happened, so we choose to side with one person and against another. Cases like these are always the ugliest because they can make a victim even more of a victim or forever throw suspicion on someone.

Yes. I'm not saying that it was GR without a doubt. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am convinced that that was the case.

This has become the ugliest of thread drifts.

The original question posed in the thread was answered and disproved pretty quickly. There isn't really much else to say there.

And a potential rapist going unidentified and unpunished is much uglier, in my mind.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I'm not saying that it was GR without a doubt. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am convinced that that was the case.

That's right. Strictly speaking, we don't know for a fact that an assault happened at all. We just know that GLW was cut from the series after appearing in eight episodes. She said at one point, and I think it was in Starlog magazine, that she was cut for budgetary reasons.

All we can do with her allegation is assign it a likelihood based on our personal views. Either she was telling it right (probably), or she was lying (it's hard to even suspect that), or she developed a false memory at some point, possibly at the hands of an incompetent therapist. I'm sure most of us figure her account was true, but we're never going to lock it down.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That's right. Strictly speaking, we don't know for a fact that an assault happened at all. We just know that GLW was cut from the series after appearing in eight episodes. She said at one point, and I think it was in Starlog magazine, that she was cut for budgetary reasons.

All we can do with her allegation is assign it a likelihood based on our personal views.

And how much of a likelihood depends solely on how badly we want to believe this person did this or didn't do that. A court of law needs facts to pass judgment for or against someone, but a court of opinion hardly any.

 

[BillJ]

And a potential rapist going unidentified and unpunished is much uglier, in my mind.

This.

We do have to acknowledge that Roddenberry wasn't a choir boy. His extra-marital affairs and taking credit for others work tells us that.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And it's not going to stop some members' bias against Gene Roddenberry.

...or some members' breathless defense of Roddenberry--even in the face of repeatedly verified facts which rendered him something far less than the grand mastermind responsible for anything good in TOS.

 

[Drone]

Lost in Space--despite being a largely terrible series--was from a proven producer/director (Irwin Allen) with more credibility than Roddenberry at the time, and if Allen borrowed from any source, it was--ironically--from many of the same films Roddenberry ripped, such as Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth & The Day the Earth Stood Still. CBS, Allen or 20th Century Fox did not take anything from his Star Trek pitch to add to Lost in Space, and i've never found any of the Allen papers confirm that any sticky-fingered actions took place.
As others noted, this was more Roddenberry bull.

Amen, at least to the provenance issue. Allen's concept was developed long before Trek was likely even a a glimmer in Roddenberry''s mind. It was not Wagon Train to the Stars, it was The Swiss Family Robinson in Space, that was so integral to the basis of the show, that there were legal actions involving the original comic book genesis for the idea. There was nothing integrated or grafted from Trek's earliest presented incarnation. Did Roddenberry loathe Allen? I don't doubt that at the time, Allen wouldn't have considered Roddenberry to be worth much time giving thought to, considering their track records up to that point.

...or some members' breathless defense of Roddenberry--even in the face of repeatedly verified facts which rendered him something far less than the grand mastermind responsible for anything good in TOS.

Amen again. The growth of a cultural colossus, like Trek developed into, can rarely be laid solely at the feet of a single person, whatever the specific endeavor. To maintain that a unitary creative vision continued to be the dominant means of informing the path of a franchise that one can clearly see changed its orientation over time, is simply hard to entertain while maintaining any degree of credulity. This doesn't even speak to the exceptional achievements by the mass number of artists, craftsmen, writers, etc. whose contributions meant so much to the popularity, nay affection, for the perceived woof and warp of Trek that in large part, exerted the demand for the resumption of the production after years of dormancy.

Don't remove Roddenberry's imprimatur from the beginnings of the epic, but be cognizant that this wasn't a Steve Jobs whose creative genius could single-mindedly forge the determination, direction, fate, or execution of this universe for very long or very far, in relation to such an idealization that is still adhered to by some..

 

[C.E. Evans]

Most TV shows and movies are not singular visions in which one person is responsible for everything. Far more often than not, they are collaborations, but the person in charge is given the credit (or the blame) for the stuff that comes about under his or her watch. It's been that way from the start and it continues today both inside and outside of Hollywood. How many of us work at jobs in which our boss gets credit for things his or her team members actually did? Heck, even today, we give J.J. Abrams credit for the last two Trek movies--and even name them "Abramsverse" or "J.J.Trek"--but what we see on screen are really as much (if not more) the creations of his partners like Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof. Even George Lucas didn't create Star Wars alone, but he gets pretty much the entire credit for creating it regardless. So Roddenberry is by no means alone or even remotely unique in this kind of crediting system in Hollywood...

 

[STEPhon IT]

You can't possibly know that as a fact.

Of course I can't. They did green light it, what a notion TV execs commit to producing a show and they were shrugging and saying, "Meh". The book, Inside Star Trek...,does described what they liked and disliked, and were interested in how to market the series. At least in the beginning NBC was all in.

 

[STEPhon IT]

...or some members' breathless defense of Roddenberry--even in the face of repeatedly verified facts which rendered him something far less than the grand mastermind responsible for anything good in TOS.

And it's appropriate for this thread, how???

 

[STEPhon IT]

Amen. Thread should be retitled and the original post deleted!

Yeah. Roddenberry, rapist, liar of women and anything else. I don't think it needs to be retitled but if someone wants to hijack a thread about sexual assaults, by accusers they're claiming was Gene Roddenberry, can start their own thread. Claiming facts which they are not unless there's a police report or the accusers come out from the shadows like Bill Cosby's situation can install that bullsh*t in an area where it's appropriate.
This thread I thought was an exploration of the show and the production, not some f^cking expose' on a producer raping women. WTF???

 

[BillJ]

This thread I thought was an exploration of the show and the production, not some f^cking expose' on a producer raping women. WTF???

Well, it was part of the production...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And it's appropriate for this thread, how???

Probably as appropriate as:

And it's not going to stop some members' bias against Gene Roddenberry.

...which is about board members, not the topics.

 

[Maurice]

Of course I can't. They did green light it, what a notion TV execs commit to producing a show and they were shrugging and saying, "Meh". The book, Inside Star Trek...,does described what they liked and disliked, and were interested in how to market the series. At least in the beginning NBC was all in.

None of which indicates "NBC Execs' minds were blown away". That was my point. Solow might've claimed they were, but that'd be his recollection and not necessarily fact. If you'd said "Solow said NBC execs' minds were blown," that'd have qualified it.

 

[Kor]

Well, it was part of the production...

If it was true, I find it kind of surprising that GLW would come back for TMP.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

If it was true, I find it kind of surprising that GLW would come back for TMP.

Kor

I can't speak for Ms. Whitney's reasoning, but her career was kind of sparse by that point...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0926298/

 

[Trekfan12]

I finished reading the book, I thought it was good. I think that after not having the support of the network or the studio it's amazing that Star Trek got on the air, let alone lasted 3 seasons. What they didn't really listen to was us fans.

He mentions the fights that Leonard had with tptb over Spock. I'm glad that he held firm to keeping his character true to his nature.
I was curious about something that was said by Fred Freiberger (page 271 season three chapter) Leonard and Fred butted heads. Leonard had problems with the way his character had been handled during the second season. He told Fred that he and the producer had been far apart in terms of artistic viewpoints, and he cited "Amok Time." as a good example of how his character was being shortchanged. The producer felt that Spock was heavily involved on many levels.

I was a bit confused by why Leonard used that episode as an example. I thought the episode dealt, very well, with Spock's background, showed us a glimpse of Vulcan and we got the Vulcan salute, live long and prosper. And we got to understand how Vulcans choose their mates and Pon Farr, etc. I remember Leonard talking very positively about Amok Time.

There are other episodes where I can see Leonard fighting for the Vulcan.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I finished reading the book, I thought it was good. I think that after not having the support of the network or the studio it's amazing that Star Trek got on the air, let alone lasted 3 seasons. What they didn't really listen to was us fans.

He mentions the fights that Leonard had with tptb over Spock. I'm glad that he held firm to keeping his character true to his nature.
I was curious about something that was said by Fred Freiberger (page 271 season three chapter) Leonard and Fred butted heads. Leonard had problems with the way his character had been handled during the second season. He told Fred that he and the producer had been far apart in terms of artistic viewpoints, and he cited "Amok Time." as a good example of how his character was being shortchanged. The producer felt that Spock was heavily involved on many levels.

I was a bit confused by why Leonard used that episode as an example. I thought the episode dealt, very well, with Spock's background, showed us a glimpse of Vulcan and we got the Vulcan salute, live long and prosper. And we got to understand how Vulcans choose their mates and Pon Farr, etc. I remember Leonard talking very positively about Amok Time.

There are other episodes where I can see Leonard fighting for the Vulcan.

Which book was that again?

 

[Kor]

Which book was that again?

Shatner's Star Trek Memories, I think.

Kor

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I can't imagine what Nimoy could've objected to in "Amok Time," unless he didn't like Spock being in a trance towards the end of the episode.

 

[Trekfan12]

Shatner's Star Trek Memories, I think.

Kor

yes, sorry. It was Shatner's ST Memories.