Stupid writing is stupid.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
"We need gatekeepers to make us go."-Gatekeepers
Gene Roddenberry around 1987 was almost a parody of himself. His strange combination of utopianism and sexism with a dash of cringe-inducing racism("Code of Honor(TNG)") was indicative of the fact he wasn't the best person to be in charge of the franchise at that point in its history.
The fact that he wanted "Family" not to be done, and required heavy rewrites of "The Bonding" to even accept it as a script tells me enough.
Plus his insistence that TFF be apocryphal and refusal to recognize the events in the film as official show how far he'd strayed from having an open mind about the stories others wrote for his creation. Sorry, Gene, you were no longer the deciding vote about what was Star Trek and what wasn't.
We don't get a vote on what's canon. Not our bailiwick.
I think he also renounced ST6 as part of "canon" Trek.
And TOS had already been relegated to the status of an in-universe TV show by the time of the TMP novelisation, so we know how he felt about that (and TAS)
Given his view on 24th century humanity and how they had "evolved", I can't see him being on board for DS9 or later shows, which relied on personal drama more.
So for the "canon according to Gene Roddenberry" that leaves ST1, possibly ST2, 3 & 4 (we know he was unhappy about the militarisation of Starfleet) and the parts of TNG he had direct involvement with.
Quite a short list!
(Reposting my July post from another thread)
Peter David, writer for the Star Trek comics, wrote in rec.arts.startrek what were acceptable sources for the stories and what not in 1990:
"This is what we have been told by Paramount as being "official/real/ canonical" whatever phrase you want to use, Star Trek.
First Season STTOS
Second season STTOS
STTMP
STTNG
That's it, in terms of what is absolutely acceptable.
The animated series is verboten. No mention to be made, no characters to be used. Nothing. Nada. If it was established on the animated series and we try to use it, we're told it wasn't established.
As for Treks 2 through 5, and the entire third season, nothing in that is absolute. We are told that "some things" are official (i.e., acceptable) and some things aren't. For example, we tried to have a storyline where Chekov is wishing that he could have his own command and were told this is no longer part of his character. When we cited his semi-conscious stating of "Admiral" as rank in Trek IV as an example that it must still be SOMEWHERE in his mind, we were told that that didn't count. We have never been given a complete list of what is acceptable and what is not.
And that is also first hand from Richard Arnold."
Also...
"No, the cat creature in Trek V was not a Caitian. We tried to introduce a Caitian in the Trek comic and were told Caitians don't exist. We pointed out that the cat creature in Trek V (not to mention an ambassador in Trek IV) sure looked like Caitians to us. We were told we were wrong. Welcome to the wild, wacky world of continuity."
Peter David, writer for the Star Trek comics, wrote in rec.arts.startrek what were acceptable sources for the stories and what not in 1990:
"This is what we have been told by Paramount as being "official/real/ canonical" whatever phrase you want to use, Star Trek.
First Season STTOS
Second season STTOS
STTMP
STTNG
That's it, in terms of what is absolutely acceptable.
The animated series is verboten. No mention to be made, no characters to be used. Nothing. Nada. If it was established on the animated series and we try to use it, we're told it wasn't established.
As for Treks 2 through 5, and the entire third season, nothing in that is absolute. We are told that "some things" are official (i.e., acceptable) and some things aren't. For example, we tried to have a storyline where Chekov is wishing that he could have his own command and were told this is no longer part of his character. When we cited his semi-conscious stating of "Admiral" as rank in Trek IV as an example that it must still be SOMEWHERE in his mind, we were told that that didn't count. We have never been given a complete list of what is acceptable and what is not.
And that is also first hand from Richard Arnold."
Also...
"No, the cat creature in Trek V was not a Caitian. We tried to introduce a Caitian in the Trek comic and were told Caitians don't exist. We pointed out that the cat creature in Trek V (not to mention an ambassador in Trek IV) sure looked like Caitians to us. We were told we were wrong. Welcome to the wild, wacky world of continuity."
^I don't think cutting out TAS had anything to do with Gene. There were legal entanglements around that one that weren't really cleared up until somewhere in the early 2000s and CBS magically ceased having any problem referencing TAS right around the same time.
Welcome to "Gene's Vision".
It should be noted that after Gene Roddenberry died, Richard Arnold was let go from TNG within 24 hours. I don't think he lasted too long after that in the novel or comic book wings of the franchise either.
I think the real reason for Gene not wanting to include the Post-TMP Films was because he wasn't included in them. The real reason he didn't want to acknowledge the third season of TOS was because he stepped away from it. And, even though licensing rights with Filmation may have had something to do with ignoring TAS, I think he built Star Trek up so far in his mind that he wanted to pretend it was never a cartoon.
Anything about a "vision" was something he could hide behind. And it gave him ammunition to fight Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer on everything with the films.
If you read or listen to vintage interviews with Gene Roddenberry from the '60s and '70s, it's very different from the gospel fans heard about from the '80s and '90s.
Last edited:
I have to say, with the exception of a few episodes in the middle of the season that were down in the 3/4/5 range...I really like LD on the whole. It’s cute and funny and I really like all the loving Easter eggs and references.
But...in my own little world, it definitely isn’t part of the continuity. I just don’t view it that way...and I never will. That’s the only way I can enjoy it. So that works for me.
But...in my own little world, it definitely isn’t part of the continuity. I just don’t view it that way...and I never will. That’s the only way I can enjoy it. So that works for me.
Well, either this is somewhat erroneous, or Peter David and DC just ignored it...because after the Star Trek V movie adaptation, they rolled our entire plot arcs associated with the events of TVH and TFF.
Gene's Vision™ was best left politely ignored given how many episodes and films in his own franchise he insisted should be ignored or treated as apocryphal. Yeah, he created Star Trek but by the late '80s he wasn't the only person who had created Star Trek and allowing him to have the ultimate say on anything regarding canon status and what was and wasn't acceptable story and character material would have been a colossal mistake.
True. But a little later, when TNG was launched, he tightened his grip on the content. Star Trek became Gene's sandbox, and if you wanted to play there, you played with his rules and toys only. That's also when FASA lost the rpg license.
His reign on TNG didn't last very long, though.
Did I already mention that TNG should have ended with 'All Good Things...' ?
I thought it did. Or was there another season?
Similar threads
- Locked
