News Roddenberry Biopic On The Way

[AutoAdmin]

A new news article has been published at TrekToday:

On the anniversary of what would have been the 100th birthday of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, it was announced that a new...

Continue reading...

 

[dupersuper]

"On the anniversary of what would have been the 100th birthday of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry"

Um, no, just what would have been the 100th birthday. Next year will be the first anniversary...

 

[Bixby]

wanna bet they'll gloss over his philandering ways, credit-hogging, bizarre creative choices by the time of TNG, and etc., etc.
(by ''gloss over'', I of course mean they won't get a mention at all)

 

[Mage]

wanna bet they'll gloss over his philandering ways, credit-hogging, bizarre creative choices by the time of TNG, and etc., etc.
(by ''gloss over'', I of course mean they won't get a mention at all)

No bet here. With his son producing, this will be one hell of a 'look at my great awesome dad, who was just the coolcool of the coolcool'.

 

[Trek Survivor]

It's become ever so trendy amongst fandom to demonise and rip Roddenberry apart and ignore any good stuff. Hopefully this will go some way toward redressing the balance.

And for those who think the biopic will ignore the less savoury elements because Rod Roddenberry is involved, don't bet on it: He is very aware of the flaws (I will never forget how pained Majel Barrett looked in that interview Rod did with her about the 'other women'), so I suspect this will cover parts of that too.

 

[The Wormhole]

Does anyone else find it odd that this is being done by the same guy who did a Kevorkian biopic?

 

[Bixby]

It's become ever so trendy amongst fandom to demonise and rip Roddenberry apart and ignore any good stuff. Hopefully this will go some way toward redressing the balance.

Demonise? No, I want him to be depicted like a real person, good AND bad. Yes, Roddenberry was at the center of a cultural touchstone, but at the same time he would be doing writing and producing others to do work that is STILL outstanding 50 years later, the dude had many weaknesses that he eagerly indulged.
Why I said what I said was if you look at many documentaries on Walt Disney's life, they MOST often ignore his union-busting, anti-semitism, anti-communist paranoia, credit-hogging, and on and on...
Let's have a fair balance for Roddenberry

 

[Pikirk_Janesisko]

Why I said what I said was if you look at many documentaries on Walt Disney's life, they MOST often ignore his union-busting, anti-semitism, anti-communist paranoia, credit-hogging, and on and on...
Let's have a fair balance for Roddenberry

Biopics are usually bad because of this, specially when someone from the family or acquintances are involved. It rarely turns out well. Not only that but to put a whole life of a person into a two hour film it's an almost impossible task. Other than biopics, how many films takes place during a whole character's lifetime? The good biopics normally focus on a specific timeframe which is easier to translate to film.

 

[UssGlenn]

The thing is, they can't completely ignore the philandering because the producer never would have been born if Gene hadn't been cheating on his first wife (thus leading to the divorce, remarriage, and Rod's birth).

 

[Tim Thomason]

Other than biopics, how many films takes place during a whole character's lifetime?

Forrest Gump. The Godfather movies. Big Fish. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The Time Traveler's Wife. The Notebook. Boyhood. Goodbye, Mr. Chips. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Bicentennial Man. Shawshank Redemption. Interview with the Vampire.

Good Star Trek example would be The Inner Light.

 

[Bixby]

Biopics are usually bad because of this, specially when someone from the family or acquintances are involved. It rarely turns out well. Not only that but to put a whole life of a person into a two hour film it's an almost impossible task. Other than biopics, how many films takes place during a whole character's lifetime? The good biopics normally focus on a specific timeframe which is easier to translate to film.

Huh? It's ''easier to translate'' as you say, because they don't need to hire more than 1 actor for the same lead part. But really I don't understand your argument where you specifically point to my Disney example, since most of the ''negative'' aspects of Uncle Walt mostly took place during a 20-25 year window (the early-mid 30s to the mid 50s)

But you can kind of predict by the mention of Gene's WW2 military career as a pilot where the producers probably want to spend a good chunk of the film delving on that, and likely his time as a Los Angeles policeman, which will leave little time to focus on the less savory aspects of his time helming the Original Star Trek and follow-ups.

Don't know if anyone here has seen the recent movie ''The Founder'' with Michael Keaton which was about the beginnings of the McDonald's fast food empire. They played Keaton as charming as he could for 2 hours, even when his character was being a total scumbag and stealing a family business from the McDonald brothers, and especially when he was openly romancing another man's wife.

 

[Jayson1]

Forrest Gump. The Godfather movies. Big Fish. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The Time Traveler's Wife. The Notebook. Boyhood. Goodbye, Mr. Chips. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Bicentennial Man. Shawshank Redemption. Interview with the Vampire.

Good Star Trek example would be The Inner Light.

You kind of forgot a big one. Citizen Kane of course.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It's become ever so trendy amongst fandom to demonise and rip Roddenberry apart and ignore any good stuff.

Considering that the man spent decades stealing credit and money from others who worked on Trek, it seems only fair to acknowledge that now.

The man did some great things and some outright horrible things. It's a lie to pretend that his bad deeds don't exist.

 

[publiusr]

You kind of forgot a big one. Citizen Kane of course.

They're really grousing about the new Criterion collection

I had no idea about the union busting....

 

[Gaith]

It's about time! I've been wanting a Roddenberry biopic for years. And as tempting as it may be for the family to sanitize/ignore the subjects' flaws, biopics are also a great path to awards, and thus high returns than other movies of similar budgets, and they've got to know that a too-positive depiction of the person in question is the easiest thing for critics to grouse about.

The announcement doesn't seem to say whether this will be done in cooperation with Paramount, and thus whether they'll be able to show the making of TOS, with recognizable Trek props, costumes, etc., or stop shortly before that. I could see either way working, or even a two-film arc.

Does anyone else find it odd that this is being done by the same guy who did a Kevorkian biopic?

No? Not only can writers write about different subjects at different times, I saw that Kevoirkian movie, and it was quite good. Moreover, Kevorkian was also a humanist ahead of this time.

ETA: Also, this picture The AV Club found is pretty amazing:

 

[Crewman6]

wanna bet they'll gloss over his philandering ways, credit-hogging, bizarre creative choices by the time of TNG, and etc., etc.
(by ''gloss over'', I of course mean they won't get a mention at all)

100% yes.

They should have adapted "Inside Star Trek" by Justman and Solow. SO many great stories there with a great warts-and-all view of Roddenberry.

 

[cultcross]

I'm honestly surprised this has never been done before, but I'll be interested to see what they come up with.
Rod has a history of being fairly honest about the creation - although clearly a Star Trek fan he also resists the temptation to weed out criticism from his current productions (mostly podcasts). We'll see if he can be as balanced about the creator.

 

[Kor]

So, who would be a good actor to play GR?

Kor

 

[MichaelWeals]

radca prawny

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Whoever is cast to play Robert April on SNW.