Roddenberry calls Wrath embarrassing

[Lance Warren Baylis]

Roddenberry and Bennett had history from back in the "Have Gun" days, so it doesn't particularly surprise me that Roddenberry would fire a shot across his bow.

The most fascinating thing about stories like this is seeing how frequently Roddenberry failed to live up to the ideals he often talked about at length. That's not a criticism, he was only human, but it's just interesting to think that maybe the perfect Star Trek future was an aspiration for him personally, being able to recognize his flaws and trying to be better vicariously through his fictional characters...

 

[Jayson1]

Also
I'm not making this up. I am currently reading the book "The Fifty-Year Mission The First 25 Years" by Edward Gross and Mark A. Altman. I just got done finishing the part where they talk about the making of TMP. This was one of the story idea's that was being considered. Also I believe a time travel adventure were they at the dawn of civilization and also were thinking about doing a movie were Spock was the star and even one where Kirk dies in the opening moments. Also the JFK story would be about JFK canceling his trip to Dallas because of a UFO sighting that would be the Enterprise and Kirk would meet JFK in the oval office or on the Enterprise. Eventually this is how Spock ends up shooting JFK and Klingons were also involved. You also had a time travel story were Rossevelt, Winston Churchill and Hitler and others would find themselves on the Enterprise. This was because of time travel stuff with the Guardian of Forever.

Jason

 

[Vger23]

It's sad for me to say, but I send to think Roddenberry is actually the embarrassment the more and more you read about things an/or gain perspective.

 

[Jayson1]

It's sad for me to say, but I send to think Roddenberry is actually the embarrassment the more and more you read about things an/or gain perspective.

I feel that way. I mean I have known for years that people like Gene Coon and Dorthy Fontona had more to do with TOS being great and TNG was turned around because of Micheal Piller and even Rick Berman not to mention tons of others that foolowed like Behr. Moore, Jeri Taylor etc. I also knew he was a cad back during his TOS days but the more you read about him, he comes off as a self centered asshole who would screw anyone over to be famous and make money.

Jason

 

[Kronos]

The producers of Mission: Impossible (the tv series not the garbage movies) said of the creator of the show Bruce Geller..
"He didn't know how the show worked"
Think the same thing could be said here..came up with the show, wrote the pilot but others made it work.

 

[Noname Given]

GR was just pissed that he didn't get to (re)write the thing.

No he was pissed he sold "Star Trek" to Paramount in 1969 (At the time he too thought it was a failure) for a lump sum; and they turmed around, marketed it, and made a mint, of which he saw nothing. Further he was aware that Paramount just hired him as a consultant to have his name associated with the films (and if your wondering why he took the checks - they were big checks); and he'd have zero real creative control.
^^^
It's the main reason TNG was SUCH A COMPLETE RETCON of many aspects of what was don e on TOS. Why? Becvause he OWNED a large chunck again and had full creative control - and he was going to make something that made the world forget about 1960ies 'Star Trek' - which he didn't own - and embrace this new 'better' version which he thought would supplant TOS entirely.

In the end, GR did make a 'new' version (TNG) that many people love to this day - but he did fail in supplanting and replacing TOS with it as the various very successful TOS based projects that have dominated since 2009.

 

[Jayson1]

The producers of Mission: Impossible (the tv series not the garbage movies) said of the creator of the show Bruce Geller..
"He didn't know how the show worked"
Think the same thing could be said here..came up with the show, wrote the pilot but others made it work.

Intresting you bring him up because Geller was mentioned in the above mentioned book when it talked about Nimoy doing that show. Apparently he was more interested in visuals and style and didn't care about the characters. Even told a writer that he wouldn't work on the show because he was good at character oriented stuff and that wasn't what the show was about. I haven't ever seen it but it is on Amazon Prime so I do plan to watch it sometime this year.

Jason

 

[Harvey]

Roddenberry and Bennett had history from back in the "Have Gun" days, so it doesn't particularly surprise me that Roddenberry would fire a shot across his bow.

I’m not aware of any Have Gun connection. Are you thinking of The Long Hunt of April Savage, the ABC Western pilot that Roddenberry produced for Desilu in 1965? Bennett was a network executive on that project and Gene (infamously) had him thrown off the set.

(The version of this story recounted in the latest Trek Files show is all wrong. Bennett didn’t shut down the pilot because the network didn’t like the dailies; in truth, the pilot was completed and almost landed on the ABC schedule.)

 

[Harvey]

No he was pissed he sold "Star Trek" to Paramount in 1969 (At the time he too thought it was a failure) for a lump sum; and they turmed around, marketed it, and made a mint, of which he saw nothing.

This account, which has shown up in a few books and is even regurgitated in an early paper I wrote, is, as far as I’ve been able to tell, inaccurate. Desilu and later Paramount owned Star Trek, not Roddenberry. Roddenberry did have profit participantion in the show, which the studio started paying out in the mid-80s after Roddenberry and Shatner (who also had profit participation in the show) forced Paramount to admit the show was profitable at that point.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Gene Coon was the reason the 1st 2 seasons were spectacular.

I just thought this bore repeating.

Wasn't his idea on the second movie going to involve some bizarre time travel murder plot on Earth? Like killing Hitler or something like that?

Spock on the grassy knoll.

Yep, JFK.

So, it's Jesus who kills President Kennedy in the year 1963 with the phaser?

Obvi.

Also I believe a time travel adventure were they at the dawn of civilization and also were thinking about doing a movie were Spock was the star and even one where Kirk dies in the opening moments. Also the JFK story would be about JFK canceling his trip to Dallas because of a UFO sighting that would be the Enterprise and Kirk would meet JFK in the oval office or on the Enterprise. Eventually this is how Spock ends up shooting JFK and Klingons were also involved. You also had a time travel story were Rossevelt, Winston Churchill and Hitler and others would find themselves on the Enterprise. This was because of time travel stuff with the Guardian of Forever.

Man, Roddenberry must've had some good pot back in the '70s.

I also knew he was a cad back during his TOS days but the more you read about him, he comes off as a self centered asshole who would screw anyone over to be famous and make money.

Seems like an accurate assessment of his character to me.

 

[Valenti]

Where was the moral and ethical conundrum in TWOK? It wasn't tied together properly. Now if it was about the fallout of the Genesis project and who it hurt, it would have been a much better film. Also it could have had a Klingon or two in it. It was too obvious and not Trek. I would have welcomed a rewrite by GR even in his condition and killing Spock and then resurrecting him was a bad idea. It just puts Kirk in a bad light and was a downer.

 

[DonIago]

^You do realize that the idea that Spock was going to be resurrected was somewhat of a last-minute change?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Where was the moral and ethical conundrum in TWOK?

Well, there was the Genesis device and the morality behind it, there was Khan's thirst for revenge, there was Kirk debating whether or not he still had the right stuff to command a starship, Kirk discovering that he had a son that had been kept secret from him by the mother, and there was the whole "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" thing that was personalized with Spock's sacrifice. There are a lot of moral and ethical conundrums in TWOK to chew over if you bother to look for them.

Also it could have had a Klingon or two in it.

God, please, no. We had Klingons in TMP, TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC. Can't we have just one Star Trek film where they don't actually appear?

I would have welcomed a rewrite by GR even in his condition

I wouldn't have. I can't see Roddenberry doing anything besides watering down the final product.

 

[Jayson1]

Where was the moral and ethical conundrum in TWOK? It wasn't tied together properly. Now if it was about the fallout of the Genesis project and who it hurt, it would have been a much better film. Also it could have had a Klingon or two in it. It was too obvious and not Trek. I would have welcomed a rewrite by GR even in his condition and killing Spock and then resurrecting him was a bad idea. It just puts Kirk in a bad light and was a downer.

The moral ethical conundrum comes from the Genesis device even being created. You don't need to kill anyone with it to know such a device is a bad idea because like Nukes you can just create a arms war where everyone wants one of those devices. In fact you could say the first victims were the science team of Regula 1 and The Reliant crew including the poor Captain Terrell who didn't deserve to die like he did.

Jason

 

[Harvey]

Gene Coon was the reason the 1st 2 seasons were spectacular.

Coon was a terrific writer - better than Roddenberry, in my estimation - but it’s worth pointing out his tenure as producer was only 13 months. He joined the series midway through the first season (replacing John D.F. Black) and left midway through the second season (he was replaced by John Meredyth Lucas).

 

[Jayson1]

Coon was a terrific writer - better than Roddenberry, in my estimation - but it’s worth pointing out his tenure as producer was only 13 months. He joined the series midway through the first season (replacing John D.F. Black) and left midway through the second season (he was replaced by John Meredyth Lucas).

That's true but from what I understand is that he was still writing scripts for the show even after he stopped being the producer.

Jason

 

[Commishsleer]

The moral ethical conundrum comes from the Genesis device even being created. You don't need to kill anyone with it to know such a device is a bad idea because like Nukes you can just create a arms war where everyone wants one of those devices. In fact you could say the first victims were the science team of Regula 1 and The Reliant crew including the poor Captain Terrell who didn't deserve to die like he did.

Jason

TOS Enterprise could decimate an entire planet.
The Genesis device was every bit as dangerous as a Constellation starship in the wrong hands.
Not to say I didn't breathe a sigh of relief when the device didn't work properly in TSFS

 

[Harvey]

That's true but from what I understand is that he was still writing scripts for the show even after he stopped being the producer.

Jason

That was part of his deal to release him from his contract, yes. He rewrote “A Piece of the Action” after his tenure as producer during the second season, and during the third season contributed two scripts and two additional story outlines. But he wasn’t doing other rewrites, assigning stories, or writing memos week-to-week like he was as the show’s producer.

 

[Takeru]

It's funny Roddenberry wrote that considering all the embarrassing and bad scripts and ideas he produced. He maybe fooled fans into thinking he was some kind of visionary genius back then but the people at Paramount knew the truth so why even write this?

Star Trek became a success in spite of Roddenberry, not because of him. That's true for both TOS and TNG.

 

[BigDaveX]

Where was the moral and ethical conundrum in TWOK?

There was one within the first 90 seconds of the film, when Saavik had to decide whether or not to rescue the Kobayashi Maru even though it would entail violating the Neutral Zone. True, she didn't say "Well, this certainly is a dilemma. If I don't save the Kobayashi Maru, I'll be condemning hundreds to death, but if I try to save her and fail, I could start a war that could cost billions of lives" out loud, but people generally don't vocalize their thoughts that way in real life. She just pondered her options for a few moments, then ordered a rescue (and re-iterated the order after Sulu objected).

Now if it was about the fallout of the Genesis project and who it hurt, it would have been a much better film.

The Genesis Device was an important plot point, but that wasn't what the film was really about; it was about Khan's obsessive need for revenge on Kirk, and Kirk himself having to accept both growing older and that you can't always avoid a no-win scenario. TSFS was the film that dealt with the wider issues around Project Genesis.

I know there's this mentality among certain people - and in retrospect, I think Roddenberry himself was one of them - that sci-fi should be about grandiose concepts, and should be above such petty things as conflict and/or the problems of everyday life. And while that might work well for literary sci-fi, it's something that, with one or two exceptions, has never really been the approach that successful screen sci-fi has taken.