Is this article fair to Harve Bennett and Gene Roddenberry? Did Bennett really save Trek from Roddenberry? Full article: http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/06/saving-star-trek-from-gene-roddenberry.html Short teaser: When Bennett sat down to watch a sampling of original Star Trek episodes, he began receiving the infamous “Roddenberry memos.” Rarely did they speak face to face. Instead, after exchanging awkward greetings in parking lots, Roddenberry would fire off memo after memo to Bennett, who responded politely in writing. Over the next few weeks, the memos became increasing bitter and confrontational. “Gene cast me immediately as an interloper,” Bennett reflected in Joel Engel’s unauthorized biography of Gene Roddenberry. “There wasn’t a single issue… that was not resisted in memo by Gene… He thought I was trying to do a revisionist Star Trek, whereas I perceived it as trying to replicate what had worked in the show, and thereby pay homage to the founder.”
It's a fair piece. I don't think Bennett was perfect by any means, but he at least knew how to get the right folks together to make a picture (by that I mean Meyer and Sallin), though I wish he hadn't tried to write SFS on his own, which I find to be a serious mess. I certainly don't equate Bennett with Gene Coon or even Justman or Behr&co, but he is kilometers above Berman & Lauritson & Taylor & Braga and better than Freiberger. I still think most stuff about GR (especially once you get into the drug abuse years) treats him with kid gloves.
Bennett kept Trek stutteringly alive for a few years but never really gained control of it - he always had to struggle with Shatner and Nimoy's demands, because he had neither the leverage nor the grasp of the material to really assert himself. Trek could certainly be done without Roddenberry but, in the absence of any real alternative vision on Bennett's part, it could not be done without Kirk and Spock. When he finally played his gambit for revitalizing Trek, proposing a movie in which the major characters were returned to youth through recasting, it was the actors rather than Roddenberry who leaked and campaigned and ultimately got his "Star Fleet Academy" shut down - effectively ending his stewardship of the Franchise. It was left to Roddenberry and the producers he hired on TNG to actually give the Franchise a future beyond aping itself.
I wouldn't call TWOK or TVH two films that kept the franchise "stuttering" along. TVH was trek movies at their height of popularity and profitability.
I wouldn't be a Star Trek fan today if it weren't for Harve Bennett. It's really that simple. 1982 was a very different time and place. I didn't have the reruns. I had Star Trek II and the comic book series that it spawned. For me, the movie era--1982 through 1986--is my era, and Harve Bennett's films made me a Star Trek fan. One of the happiest moments of my year was having the opportunity to shake Bennett's hand at a convention and tell him exactly that. I wouldn't be a fan. I wouldn't have the writing credits I have. I wouldn't have written "Make-Believe." That's Harve Bennett's legacy.
Profitability? That would be true of TVH; the other Trek films were modestly but dependably successful by the standards of their day - which was why you never saw a really big-budget Trek film during that time (ST III cost more than TWOK and returned less money at the box office and ST V was a big disappointment). And, of course, the mythology of the "even-odd curse" was based on the really uneven quality of the TOS-based Trek movies. According to Bennett, "Star Trek IV" was the only Trek film that the studio was confident enough of, prior to its release, to commit to doing further films afterward. And all of this was over a period of all of five years prior to the launch of TNG (which series Bennett would first dismiss as something he wouldn't invest money in and blame for the relative lack of success of ST V). So yeah, "stuttering along" is a good phrase to describe Bennett's tenure.
Points well taken, but then at what point were Star Trek movies not "stuttering along"? Bennett's films were much more successful than Berman's, with the possible exception of FC. If Bennett deserves the label of stuttering then Berman certainly does, meaning that you're saying that a film franchise stuttered through 10 movies! The only Bennett film that was entirely disappointing was Shat's TFF, whereas Nemesis entirely flopped. Otherwise, the profits off of II, III, and IV were not disappointing. If you can buy a house for 100k and sell it for 300k, you're not stuttering along. If you can sell 9/10 houses and make a decent profit of about a couple of hundred million dollars, I'd call it a successful career.
The real estate analogy may not be entirely applicable. If you buy a house for 100K, you're pretty confident you can sell it at a profit, even if you don't end up selling it for 300K. Your risk is relatively low. In the film industry, if you invest 100K (or whatever) into a movie, there's a much greater chance that you'll lose the investment. Because the risks are greater, you have to make a lot more money to justify the investment and to cover losses by other projects.
The STUDIO hired Berman, et al, not GR. By that point he was half burned out on drugs and half just plain nuts. The disgraceful treatment of Fonatana and Gerald proved that, though it still took some time before Berman was put in place to bring him to heel.
Exactly, and it is unlikely that Gene Roddenberry deserves the credit for creating TNG. He had few ideas of his own, so he basically pulled together all the ideas thet he liked of Fontana, Gerrold, et al, packaged it as his own creation, and then pulled some old phase II scripts from a desk, saying, "Hey, here are some scripts! Just change the characters or something!" Fontana refused to go on the record that Gene Roddenberry created TNG.
But, see that's the key: The investment always returned a profit, even when the job was botched (Shat's TFF). The only film that lost money was Nemesis. So, even though the profits might not be as huge as desired, it was still constantly profitable, and thus, low risk.
No, the risk only appears low in hindsight. Film revenues have consistently been extremely unpredictable, even for sequels of popular films or for films with "bankable" stars. While you hope/plan for a hit, you also have to know that there's a very real chance you will lose a lot of money on any given project, no matter what its pedigree. Even for Star Trek.
That may well be true. The long-term success of the Franchise has been built on the television series - first TOS, and then TNG and to lesser degrees the succeeding shows. The movies are life-support, at best.
Bennett did a good job, and was involved in the best Trek films. TWOK, TVH and to a lesser extent TUC were all solid fun rides that made money on the cheap and avoided pissing off the fan base. TFF was less successful, but has some of the best trek character moments in it, imo, and I've always enjoyed it enough to forgive its chessy-ness and canon-wrestling. So you'll hear no whining from me, Mr. Bennett!
So did Gerrald. In fact, several key ideas that were implimented in TNG were explicitly his, such as the idea that the Capt stayed on the ship and the XO led the "away teams". Gerald first spoke about that in the early 80s in "The World of Star Trek". They did all the heavy lifting to get Next Gen off the ground, and GR sat back and meddled (both personally and via Masalich (sp?), his lawyer.
One of these days, I'd love to see the whole, full stories of the Great Screwing of the Loyalists. It would make great reading, and could even probably be a decent film...
I'm looking forward to Bermans book. I know he wasnt around early doors, but he was pretty much there from the start of the series.
Actually, Berman was there before Roddenberry. Joel Engel lists Berman as involved in the pre-Roddenberry TNG developed by War of the Worlds creator Greg Strangis. Berman's role probably would have been as the studio suit, to make sure that the studio's interests were being looked after.