The Roddenberry Reputation

[horatio83]

Your idea of theft has nothing to do with what theft actually is. Now who is the liar?

You'll just have to do your own investigative work. Maybe you'll appreciate facts more if you have to work for them...

Yeah, hard work, more Puritan lessons.
Investigative work into the dark secrets of Roddenberry's life? I am impressed, that must be your life achievement.

Perhaps you had better spent that time learning what theft actually is before you wrongly accuse a dead mean of it. Such behaviour is quite disgusting. Where I come from adultery might not be a big thing ... but libel and pissing on a grave actually are.

 

[BillJ]

Roddenberry was a capable TV producer but a poor human being. It happens. But any discussions about Roddenberry and his "vision" will inevitably bring up the less than upstanding way he treated those around him.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Your idea of theft has nothing to do with what theft actually is. Now who is the liar?

You'll just have to do your own investigative work. Maybe you'll appreciate facts more if you have to work for them...

Yeah, hard work, more Puritan lessons.
Investigative work into the dark secrets of Roddenberry's life? I am impressed, that must be your life achievement.

Perhaps you had better spent that time learning what theft actually is before you wrongly accuse a dead mean of it. Such behaviour is quite disgusting. Where I come from adultery might not be a big thing ... but libel and pissing on a grave actually are.

He's using "theft" in an informal sense. Roddenberry liked to take credit for things he really shouldn't have. I doubt he'd be arrest for that, but "theft" seems to be a fair way to express it. While expecting GR to be faithful to his wife might be "Puritan", expecting him not to exploit his employees and coworkers isn't. Up the workers and all that.

 

[horatio83]

As the entire talk about Roddenberry not being a saint is for most fans just a complicated way to say that they don't like his vision I prefer the short version: "I don't like all this unrealistic utopian stuff." It is more to the point.

 

[Harvey]

Lastly, one of the main issues NBC had with the pilot WAS the cost (over 1 million dollars); and they were indeed concerned that Desilu couldn't/wouldn't be able to produce weekly episodes on a smaller budget; so one of the things the second pilot was - was a 'proof' to NBC that they could produce a workable/watchable and entertaining episode on what would amount to their smaller weekly budget.

Agree w/ most all of the rest of your post, but I think the million figure is even a little high counting BOTH pilots, with CAGE at something like $630,000 and WHERE NO somewhere over 300 grand.

To be exact, "The Cage" cost $615,781.56.00.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" cost $354,974.00.

The decrease in cost can probably be credited to the second pilot being shorter (50 min. vs. 78 min.), start-up costs not incurred by the second pilot (sets, costumes, props, research/development, etc.), and the crew having the experience of the first pilot under their belt.

 

[Harvey]

As the entire talk about Roddenberry not being a saint is for most fans just a complicated way to say that they don't like his vision I prefer the short version: "I don't like all this unrealistic utopian stuff." It is more to the point.

To pull a Dennis, no.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As the entire talk about Roddenberry not being a saint is for most fans just a complicated way to say that they don't like his vision I prefer the short version: "I don't like all this unrealistic utopian stuff." It is more to the point.

Nah, its because he did stuff in his private and business life that those fans don't approve of. Disliking elements from his creative life comes from a different place.

 

[horatio83]

All of the people I encountered in this thread who preached about Roddenberry the immoral sinner also complained about Trek being too preachy. So yeah, definitely some correlation and a lovely form of doublethink.

 

[Nerys Myk]

All of the people I encountered in this thread who preached about Roddenberry the immoral sinner also complained about Trek being too preachy. So yeah, definitely some correlation and a lovely form of doublethink.

In this thread or elsewhere?

 

[BillJ]

All of the people I encountered in this thread who preached about Roddenberry the immoral sinner also complained about Trek being too preachy. So yeah, definitely some correlation and a lovely form of doublethink.

In this thread or elsewhere?

I'm curious as well. Because I've never complained about Trek being "too preachy".

 

[Marsden]

I think it's entirely possible to appreciate someone's works while not actually liking the someone that created them. Not just in this case but in general with many artists. I listen to alot of music and watch tv shows, but I wouldn't want anything to do with many of them. Many of them are substance abusers and I really wouldn't like to be around that, for example.

For myself as well, I many times try not to find out about some people's private lives as I usually am disappointed with what I find out, also, it is none of my business.

GR's life is well documented, and I've read through this thread and others.

I love Star Trek, I don't love GR. I don't think there's a problem with that.

 

[Danger Ace]

I'm curious as well. Because I've never complained about Trek being "too preachy".

Agreed. I think there has been discussion as to the differences in POV between TOS era introspective preachiness and TNG's finger-pointing, but all-in-all it is one of Treks endearing features. It is what focuses us on becoming better people which in turn leads us to becoming a better society. It has to be dreamed before it can become reality.

And peoples attitudes regarding Gene Roddenberry the man and Star Trek's preachiness are two completely separate issues whereby the former could be judged negatively and the latter viewed positively without those two opinions conflicting.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'm going to get blasted for this but The Cage is overrated. The cast is almost uniformly bland and uncharismatic. The script is only okay. The money is on the screen, and the Talosians are cool, but it's nowhere near Star Trek's finest hour. WNMHGB is a much more dramatic story with far superior casting.

Agree. "The Cage" is flat, both in terms of color and story. It works better as the filler in "The Menagerie," but as a standalone it is no more cerebral than any other science fiction show of the era, such as THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS. In fact, the Adam and Eve trope is handled much better in many episodes of the former.

The cast doesn't stand out. Pike isn't really a dynamic character, due really to Hunter's rather stoic performance. Bruce Greenwood is far more charismatic in the role. Other than Nimoy, no one in the cast really stands out. While the character of Number One has potential, the actress doesn't.

"Where No Man ... " is a much more engaging story with a great character dilemma for Kirk. More than that, it has wonderful conflict that comes from opposing worldviews — Kirk's and Spock's. Wish there had been more of that antagonism in the actual series. (And is something I'm glad the Abrams' movies have picked up on.)

 

[BillJ]

I'm going to get blasted for this but The Cage is overrated. The cast is almost uniformly bland and uncharismatic. The script is only okay. The money is on the screen, and the Talosians are cool, but it's nowhere near Star Trek's finest hour. WNMHGB is a much more dramatic story with far superior casting.

Agree. "The Cage" is flat, both in terms of color and story. It works better as the filler in "The Menagerie," but as a standalone it is no more cerebral than any other science fiction show of the era, such as THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS. In fact, the Adam and Eve trope is handled much better in many episodes of the former.

I like The Cage, but I think the analysis of the acting is spot on. I doubt we'd still be talking about Hunter, Hoyt and Barrett fifty years later.

 

[BillJ]

I'm curious as well. Because I've never complained about Trek being "too preachy".

Agreed. I think there has been discussion as to the differences in POV between TOS era introspective preachiness and TNG's finger-pointing, but all-in-all it is one of Treks endearing features. It is what focuses us on becoming better people which in turn leads us to becoming a better society. It has to be dreamed before it can become reality.

And peoples attitudes regarding Gene Roddenberry the man and Star Trek's preachiness are two completely separate issues whereby the former could be judged negatively and the latter viewed positively without those two opinions conflicting.

I think the thing about TNG is that they started buying the hype that they were somehow socially important and it made for a show that wasn't as fun as TOS.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm curious as well. Because I've never complained about Trek being "too preachy".

Agreed. I think there has been discussion as to the differences in POV between TOS era introspective preachiness and TNG's finger-pointing, but all-in-all it is one of Treks endearing features. It is what focuses us on becoming better people which in turn leads us to becoming a better society. It has to be dreamed before it can become reality.

And peoples attitudes regarding Gene Roddenberry the man and Star Trek's preachiness are two completely separate issues whereby the former could be judged negatively and the latter viewed positively without those two opinions conflicting.

I think the thing about TNG is that they started buying the hype that they were somehow socially important and it made for a show that wasn't as fun as TOS.

I think part of it is that when Kirk does it, you feel it comes from the heart. With Picard, it's like being lectured to by the Headmaster.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"Where No Man ... " is a much more engaging story with a great character dilemma for Kirk. More than that, it has wonderful conflict that comes from opposing worldviews — Kirk's and Spock's. Wish there had been more of that antagonism in the actual series. (And is something I'm glad the Abrams' movies have picked up on.)

I love the segment that opens with Spock's line about "white mice". It's a great Star Trek moment.

 

[Maurice]

The "two pilots was unheard of at the time..." has always been GR BS. BOTH "Gilligan's Island" and "Lost In Space" got second pilot attempts before they finally aired.

Incorrect examples. Sherwood Schwartz kept resubmitting the Gilligan's Island pilot, and after drastically re-editing it, CBS finally picked it up. Bits of the pilot were cut into the first regular series episode, and the pilot's plot was recycled as the 1st season Christmas episode. Lost in Space has a single pilot, but changes were made for series production (addition of the Robot, Dr. Smith, etc.) and the pilot was chopped up and bits incorporated into various early episodes.

Neither is the same as shooting two wholly different pilots.

 

[Marsden]

I think part of it is that when Kirk does it, you feel it comes from the heart. With Picard, it's like being lectured to by the Headmaster.

Very well said.

 

[trevanian]

I think part of it is that when Kirk does it, you feel it comes from the heart. With Picard, it's like being lectured to by the Headmaster.

Very well said.

My issue has always been that Picard seems very Captain-as-King in 'tude, which is very retro and not enlightened 24thcentury at all. Whereas Kirk is not afraid of showing his emotions a lot of the time, so while he has his great quiet powerful moments (Balance of Terror, CHARLIE X), most remember stuff like RISK IS OUR BUSINESS from RtT or, more painfully, SHE'S HUMAN! from requiem.)

Kirk and Sisko (and Janeway even when I was able to watch VOYAGER) seemed military commander-like, whereas Picard vacillated between King and diplomat. The others could incorporate those aspects while still seeming to be in the service, but Picard ... well, suffice to say I'm not a fan.

Q WHO and TAPESTRY and the end of ALL GOOD THINGS show promise at what COULD have been with Picard, but I have always seen him as a missed opportunity. (also kind of wished they HAD let Q serve as their Exec for awhile, because 1st season Riker was such a damned tourist!)