Well actually the less pointless bickering amongst the crew led to greater inner conflict in the characters signifying and giving a greater meaning to their actions. The less said the better. nobody cares how this one feels about that, he thinks about this, everybody's got something to say even Guinan and the janitor and Mott the barber. I can get that anywhere. It's a more evolved approach a la 2001. which was much more real and believable than anything else at the time.
What if Gene Roddenberry was still alive.
- Thread starter think
- Start date
I agree. Calling it a "space western" sounds like a high-concept tagline Herb Solow might've coached Gene Roddenberry on when pitching the series to CBS and NBC.
Sorry to double-dip but this question deserves its own post:
Could the part of Gene Roddenberry's "vision", for lack of a better a term, about money and wealth no longer being what drives humanity have come from his life experiences in the '70s, when he had one failing and stalling project after another and the only source on income he really had was from convention appearances and royalties of Star Trek reruns? Financial hardship can make people wish money, or the lack of it, didn't have such an impact on our quality of life.
Could the part of Gene Roddenberry's "vision", for lack of a better a term, about money and wealth no longer being what drives humanity have come from his life experiences in the '70s, when he had one failing and stalling project after another and the only source on income he really had was from convention appearances and royalties of Star Trek reruns? Financial hardship can make people wish money, or the lack of it, didn't have such an impact on our quality of life.
Last edited:
^No. Roddenberry didn't invent the moneyless future. And he certainly didn't wont for money, women, or a legacy. People condemn others so totally. His myriad faults being what they were (and how much more than so many others whose movies we enjoy blissfully ignorant of the skeletons in their closets) he still came up with and chose to champion a progressive franchise. People on these boards have been bigger jerks to each other than they'll ever experience from Gene Roddenberry.
True, that's the reason I used quotations.
Depends on when we're talking about. He was steadily working on TV series in the '50s and '60s, whether it was Have Gun, The Lieutenant, or Star Trek. Not so much in the '70s, when he couldn't get anything post-Trek either off the ground or successful and if his money situation were so great at the time, he wouldn't have needed to work on all those projects and he wouldn't have had to turn back to Star Trek.
When it comes right down to it, GR was a pretty successful TV staff writer. He got lucky with his own series, Star Trek, but it struggled and was considered a failure within the industry, ultimately.
After Trek he also failed at getting a feature made - one was a sexed up version of Tarzan that fell apart, the other was Pretty Maids All In A Row, a sexy comedy that Gene disowned. When Genesis II and Questor failed to work out, he was pretty much washed up in TV as well.
He needed money and went on the lecture circuit. From my perspective, it was during this time that Gene started to develop and refine his humanistic philosophy... or his "vision" -- when he started having in depth conversations with college professors, great sci-fi writers, scientists, and the like.
If you read some of his memos from the CREATOR bio, he was debating the nature and existence of God and humanity with friends and colleagues around the time he started writing what because The God Thing and eventually TMP.
It's kind of the same today... producers/writers who have great ideas but aren't successful in the studio's eyes don't really get the chances to get their projects made. Sad, but true.
I think people also get disappointed thinking that he'd be this monk-like humanist since his youth, and disdain his Hollywood mogul reality. Though TOS was different than TNG, to say that it wasn't humanistic is false. I don't know when or why Roddenberry further delved into humanism. Was it hype to sell a new series, or was it better understanding of what made his earlier work so popular? Consider this though: he didn't need to change Trek to sell it. It was already popular just as it was and much more familiar.
Is the question "what if he were still alive" or "if he were still alive, and in control of ST, what would ST be like"? I need more info before I can answer dammit!
Ah well, I'll try anyhow...
If he were still alive, he'd be alive. He'd probably have a lot of money too.
If he were still in control of ST I'd have probably stopped watching by now.
Ah well, I'll try anyhow...
If he were still alive, he'd be alive. He'd probably have a lot of money too.
If he were still in control of ST I'd have probably stopped watching by now.
A bit of a left field answer, but... Gerry Anderson is alive today. He's a bit younger than Gene would be, bit more or less a contemporary, and still alive and active today... so take a look at his track record over the last 20 years for comparison.
Of course, you're comparing aplles and orranges in many ways, but... a lot of people chalked up the failure of Space Precinct in the 1990s to Anderson not keeping pace with the way the audience had changed in the meantime, whereas the comparative success of the revived Captain Scarlet was reportedly down to Anderson accepting that he had to give the youngsters on the team their head in reinterpreting his ideas. Which way would Gene have gone? Dunno.
In many ways, an equally interesting question is: What if Gene Coon were alive today? Or even, if he'd lived as long as Gene R?
Of course, you're comparing aplles and orranges in many ways, but... a lot of people chalked up the failure of Space Precinct in the 1990s to Anderson not keeping pace with the way the audience had changed in the meantime, whereas the comparative success of the revived Captain Scarlet was reportedly down to Anderson accepting that he had to give the youngsters on the team their head in reinterpreting his ideas. Which way would Gene have gone? Dunno.
In many ways, an equally interesting question is: What if Gene Coon were alive today? Or even, if he'd lived as long as Gene R?
^One of the best answers I've read yet.
One thing I wish he'd have been ably to is infuse more heart, more "humanity," into the latest Trek movie. It went down smooth, but I can't say that it was moving in a fulfilling way. After the the teaser that is, and for all its emotional wallop, I found it unsettlingly manipulative and predictable.
and what is it about the word "Humanism" that sounds so lacking in virility?
One thing I wish he'd have been ably to is infuse more heart, more "humanity," into the latest Trek movie. It went down smooth, but I can't say that it was moving in a fulfilling way. After the the teaser that is, and for all its emotional wallop, I found it unsettlingly manipulative and predictable.
and what is it about the word "Humanism" that sounds so lacking in virility?
+1. Very well put, Number 6.
It's hard to further commercialize something that was created with one principal goal in mind: to make money.
Similar threads
- Locked
