Seriously, what's "Gene's Vision"?

[CRM-114]

Trekkies like to throw around "Gene's Vision" as through it were some immutable truth of the universe, when I'm not even sure if we can collectively agree on a meaning.

Is Gene's Vision what constitutes the themes of Star Trek, those of peace, tolerance and seeking to better oneself? Is it the idea that humankind can overcome its' troubles to forge a better tomorrow? Is it both of those things, or is it neither? Depending on who you ask, Gene's Vision seems to include the actual Trek aesthetic, the "look" of Star trek, a look it should be noted has evolved over time.

Speaking of evolving which version of Gene's Vision is "the" vision, what we see in TOS, or is it what we see in TNG? Is it the growing but still learning people of the 23rd century, or the often self-righteous holier-than-thou people of the 24th?

Considering that Roddenberry died in 1991, thus ending his creative involvement with the franchise, and also considering that Star Trek has the fingerprints of a lot of creative people on it, why should Gene's Vision be treated as though it were sacrosanct?

Or has it simply become a vague platitude that people throw around to justify their arguments about Star Trek, regardless of their position?

I'm not saying that Star Trek's themes (peace, tolerance, and growth) don't matter, it's that we should consider the idea that there's more to Star Trek than one man's idea for a better future.

 

[Kemaiku]

Is it simply a vague platitude that people throw around to justify their arguments about Star Trek, regardless of their position?

Yes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

"You wanna know what my vision is? Dollar signs. Money!" - Zefram Cochrane, something of a Gene Roddenberry expy, Star Trek: First Contact.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think at its simplest, it's just that we'll still be around in the future, and that future will be better than our present. IMO, everything else is kind of derived from that (for better or worse).

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Roddenberry originally had the idea of a fictional universe where people could be told stories about themselves and learn that humans will live on beyond the time they're watching the series.

This was put through the prism of an adventure-based platform.

Years later, as the 70's progressed and people began to latch onto Roddenberry, giving him these high and lofty platitudes of how his creation was a utopian ideal, he began to believe those people, and he started to institute this "Vision" of the future, where it was this peaceful future where humanity had evolved beyond faults and wanted to explore in space, sometimes showing others how incredible things could be if others followed how humans have evolved.

The "Vision" evolved from people around Gene, repeatedly told to him until he believed it.

 

[CRM-114]

Roddenberry originally had the idea of a fictional universe where people could be told stories about themselves and learn that humans will live on beyond the time they're watching the series.

This was put through the prism of an adventure-based platform.

Years later, as the 70's progressed and people began to latch onto Roddenberry, giving him these high and lofty platitudes of how his creation was a utopian ideal, he began to believe those people, and he started to institute this "Vision" of the future, where it was this peaceful future where humanity had evolved beyond faults and wanted to explore in space, sometimes showing others how incredible things could be if others followed how humans have evolved.

The "Vision" evolved from people around Gene, repeatedly told to him until he believed it.

That’s what I’m getting at when ask, “Which version?” Gene’s Ideas of what Star Trek was, or could be, markedly shifted over time such that we find ourselves having to ask the question, “Which one is the right one?” Roddenberry himself would probably say TNG, since it is so different thematically from what we see in TOS.

 

[Noname Given]

Gene's Vision™ = Marleting ploy perpetrated by GR to make Star trek fans feel they were something special, and that the show itself was something more socially relevant that other genre shows of the time (it wasn't as both the Twilight Zone and the first Outer Limits also dealt with socially relevant topics couching them in science fiction and fantasy elements - and they did 'morality plays too) - all in an attempt to keep interest alive so GR could continue to market Star Trek memorabilia (after already having sold the IP lock stock and barrel to Paramount studios in 1969) via his Lincoln Enterprises company; and may be get the show revived so he could get another paycheck.

Also see: Great Bird of the Galaxy

 

[Kor]

Gene's innovative vision is a future Earth where humans are possessed of highly developed mental abilities and participate in group consciousness, Starfleet officers have computer chips implanted in their heads, marriage is by definition a temporary contract, casual nudity is an everyday thing amongst the general civilian populace, and there's a professional occupation called "love instructor."

Kor

 

[Balok's Decoy]

It depends on who you ask. It's kind of a meaningless term at this point. And in any case I find it more useful/interesting to talk about the "Star Trek Vision" rather than the "Roddenberry Vision" because it wasn't just Roddenberry who crafted Star Trek's vision. It was also Gene Coon's Vision, Dorothy Fontana's Vision, Berman/Braga's Vision (sorry), Nimoy's Vision (insert any other actor), etc and so forth.

 

[The Wormhole]

Gene's Vision is Star Trek's greatest handicap, since strict adherence to The Vision basically means interesting story ideas aren't allowed.

But really, the franchise existed just fine for twenty years before Gene's Vision became immutable law, and indeed Gene's Vision is just Roddenberry's way of maintaining control over the franchise, in reaction to Paramount removing him from the movies after TMP.

 

[BillJ]

Money, hookers and blow.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Gene's Vision is Star Trek's greatest handicap, since strict adherence to The Vision basically means interesting story ideas aren't allowed.

But really, the franchise existed just fine for twenty years before Gene's Vision became immutable law...

The irony is that Rick Berman was probably more of a champion of that than Roddenberry was--certainly longer than Roddenberry did in any event. Roddenberry may have started off in firm creative control of things in 1987, but by 1990 he really wasn't controlling anything anymore except in name.

 

[The Wormhole]

While I don't really want to turn this into Berman dissing, he really was someone who lacked vision or ambition with the franchise, insisting on keeping things "safe" and in line with the so-called "Gene's Vision" which truth be told I doubt he ever understood. Though, truth be told, I doubt anyone truly understood the mad ramblings of a mentally ill alcoholic druggy on a downward spiral to the grave.

Anyway, Berman enforced the idea that Gene's Vision was immutable law to the point that they more or less ran out of ideas by TNG's fourth or fifth season and from there on the franchise got mired in a rut of repetition in which the same kinds of stories or even the same stories were being told and retold ad nauseum. Not to mention things Roddenberry said were held to while simultaneously being ignored. Starfleet isn't a military, even though they act exactly like one. There's no money in the future, even though characters have accounts to charge purchases to, and so on.

Yeah, Gene's Vision is a mess which has caused the Trek franchise a lot more problems than it should have been allowed to.

 

[BillJ]

While I don't really want to turn this into Berman dissing, he really was someone who lacked vision or ambition with the franchise, insisting on keeping things "safe" and in line with the so-called "Gene's Vision" which truth be told I doubt he ever understood.

I'm no Berman-booster, but I find what he produced is far more entertaining than anything that has come out of Discovery, yet.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm no Berman-booster, but I find what he produced is far more entertaining than anything that has come out of Discovery, yet.

To be fair, that's not saying much. But yes, I agree. Voyager sure had a more engaging cast that Discovery does, that's for sure.

 

[Push The Button]

Do we really have to do this?

Gene created something that we all love, and I will forever be grateful. He could have chosen to make a western or a cop show instead.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Gene's vision: lots of lovely young ladies in miniskirts and go-go boots in soft focus.

 

[SPCTRE]

Seriously, what's "Gene's Vision"?

*zzzzzip*

 

[KennyB]

Boats and hos.............

 

[Trek Survivor]

Do we really have to do this?

Agreed. This is hardly new. The demonisation/tearing down of Roddenberry has been going on since his death. At this point, those that tear apart Roddenberry and mock his 'vision' etc are far greater than those with any blind adherence to it.

He was a man. A heavily flawed man with plenty of personal demons and - too often - a casual disregard for others. However, he had a terrific imagination and created something truly wonderful (obviously not alone, nobody is claiming that).

He DID have a vision - that mankind could improve upon itself; that things could and would 'get better'; that the 'human adventure' was just beginning, and would continue to thrive. Both TOS and TNG clearly demonstrate this.

Yes, he also liked his women, and money and all the other things people continually bring up - I don't recall Gene ever saying he was perfect, or lived the ideals he saw for humanity's future.

People seem to criticise the fact that it was a changing vision - but why shouldn't Gene's vision and view of things evolve and change over time? I have definitely changed my views on many things in twenty years.