What Star Trek is all about?

[Methos]

i'm under no illusion that Gene Roddenberry was a saint or anything, he was a man, nothing more nothing less...

but i do believe he created something fun, if he had his foibles, like affairs or whatever, then it happened... one thing people should remember when judging people in the past, all of this happened during the 60's and 70's, when the social attitudes were completely different...

we can't judge anyone by todays standards, over 50 years later... the 60's were a time of sexual revolution and modernity...

I can't comment on the points of stealing credit or royalties either... that's business and as much as i hate to say it, i don't understand business at all lol

M

 

[Sci]

If he'll lie once about Star Trek or a hundred times, what makes you think the crap he's fed you about an optimistic future isn't just that, crap? What makes you think he wasn't just peddling a placebo that he knew would sell to the masses thus keeping his cash-flow going?

That seems like an odd question to me. Roddenberry's "vision" -- insofar as he had one; I think that people tend to exaggerate how well-developed his ideas really were -- wasn't built on his own personal credibility. His ideas did not boil down to, "I am the way, the truth, the light" or obedience to him. He wasn't selling himself.

Rather, he was selling the idea that society can be better. That scientific advancement, combined with social progress (cultural diversity, greater cultural syncretism, a renunciation of aggression and domination), can produce a society where things like poverty, disease, war (amongst human, anyway), racism, and class domination have been eliminated. He was, in short, selling the idea that the future can get better and humanity is not static or trapped in an endless cycle of wars, empires, and tyranny.

This is not something unique to Roddenberry. It is, in fact, optimism about the future that's very common to science fiction in general -- it's one of the things that distinguishes science fiction from other genres. And while I certainly think that more dystopian fiction is valuable and good, I also think that Roddenberry's and other SF writers' brands of historical optimism make for very good storytelling.

And not a lick of it has anything to do with Roddenberry's personal failings. Saying that the idea of a better future is just crap because Gene Roddenberry wasn't always a stand-up guy is -- to make an extreme comparison -- like saying that the idea of racial equality and inter-racial peace and unity is crap because Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. MLK wasn't selling himself, he was selling an IDEA. So was Roddenberry.

 

[BillJ]

Nevertheless, wouldn't you say that Star Trek, by and large, does indeed portray an optimistic view of humanity and its future? Sure, it is by no means an original idea, but still, I always found that quite appealing about the show(s).

I think it depends largely on which series we're talking about. In The Original Series, we have a crew who exterminates the Salt Vampire, was going to do the same to the Horta to keep mineral production going, was going to shoot first and ask questions later in regards to the Gorn and was going to slaughter a good amount of folks on Eminiar VII. I'm not sure they were that far removed from us modern humans in their outlook on life.

Which brings me to another nit, Roddenberry was given credit for the racial diversity on TOS when in fact it was NBC that was the ones interested in portraying racial diversity.

I understand that some people can get soured on a work of art when they learn its creator had some serious shortcomings but that doesn't make what once appealed to you any less present in it, does it? I guess, I'm approaching art more from an "it's what you make of it" angle.

I'll admit that my own life experiences with infidelity and the effects it can have on children play a part in why I've soured on Roddenberry over the years...

 

[BillJ]

And not a lick of it has anything to do with Roddenberry's personal failings. Saying that the idea of a better future is just crap because Gene Roddenberry wasn't always a stand-up guy is -- to make an extreme comparison -- like saying that the idea of racial equality and inter-racial peace and unity is crap because Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. MLK wasn't selling himself, he was selling an IDEA. So was Roddenberry.

I think Roddenberry was a snake oil salesman.

He wasn't peddling something he personally believed in, he was peddling something he knew people would buy...

YMMV.

 

[Sci]

I think it depends largely on which series we're talking about. In The Original Series, we have a crew who exterminates the Salt Vampire,

A strange bit of spin, there. The Salt Vampire species was already functionally extinct, and the last individual in that species was trying to kill someone. The only way to save that person's life was to kill the Salt Vampire. In other words, they killed one individual to save an innocent life from his predations; they did not engage in a massive campaign of genocide.

was going to do the same to the Horta to keep mineral production going,

And stopped when they realized that the Horta were sentient and could be lived with in peace. If that episode had been done with a less hopeful driving vision -- if it had been done as, say, an episode of The Outer Limits? It would have ended with Kirk and Company killing the Horta, destroying her eggs... and then realizing that she had been sentient, was only acting in self-defense, and that peaceful coexistence could have been possible. The story would have ended in guilt rather than mutual redemption.

That is what makes Star Trek an optimistic vision of the future -- not this idea that they're just inherently, naturally better than people in real life, but the idea that social progress has encouraged and enabled people to listen to the better angels of their nature more often than they do today.

was going to shoot first and ask questions later in regards to the Gorn

And, again, in that same episode, they learned that the "Other" was in fact only acting in what it understood as self-defense, and rose above the impulse to be drawn into a cycle of endless violence and revenge.

Which brings me to another nit, Roddenberry was given credit for the racial diversity on TOS when in fact it was NBC that was the ones interested in portraying racial diversity.

I think you bring up a valid point here -- much as Gene Roddenberry has been lionized, it's important to remember that STAR TREK was not just his baby. It was a collaborative effort that benefited from the creativity -- and optimism! -- of numerous other producers, writers, and actors, including Gene L. Coon, D.C. Fontana, David Gerold, Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Leonard Nimoy, among others.

 

[Count Zero]

Nevertheless, wouldn't you say that Star Trek, by and large, does indeed portray an optimistic view of humanity and its future? Sure, it is by no means an original idea, but still, I always found that quite appealing about the show(s).

I think it depends largely on which series we're talking about. In The Original Series, we have a crew who exterminates the Salt Vampire, was going to do the same to the Horta to keep mineral production going, was going to shoot first and ask questions later in regards to the Gorn and was going to slaughter a good amount of folks on Eminiar VII. I'm not sure they were that far removed from us modern humans in their outlook on life.

It's been a while since I last watched any Trek but if I remember correctly, they didn't have much of a choice in regards to the salt vampire and they thought the Gorn had just arbitrarily attacked the colony. And they did wipe it out, killing all its inhabitants instead of trying to explain that they have a claim there. And that episode ends with Kirk not killing the Gorn captain and the Federation acknowledging the Gorn's claim without any repercussions to them. I don't think you'd find many powerful nations today which would act like that.

I don't remember the particulars of the other episodes but, while they were obviously not perfect, the Enterprise crew (and by extension the Federation) were depicted as trying to be better and following certain ideals (like tolerance, collaboration, diplomacy, war and violence only as a last resort).
I agree that this was more emphasized in modern Trek, especially TNG. That the people of the Trekverse had their faults and were generally pretty close to us isn't a bad thing. It made them more relatable and it also made it appear more likely that it could be achieved.

In short, I agree that some fans overstate the idealism present in Trek but I also think that you're a bit too negative in your interpretation of Trek. But it's an interesting perspective.

 

[Sci]

And not a lick of it has anything to do with Roddenberry's personal failings. Saying that the idea of a better future is just crap because Gene Roddenberry wasn't always a stand-up guy is -- to make an extreme comparison -- like saying that the idea of racial equality and inter-racial peace and unity is crap because Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. MLK wasn't selling himself, he was selling an IDEA. So was Roddenberry.

I think Roddenberry was a snake oil salesman.

He wasn't peddling something he personally believed in, he was peddling something he knew people would buy...

YMMV.

I think that one of the tragic, but fascinating, aspects of human nature is that one can believe, very deeply, very strongly, with all of one's heart, in something, in an ideal... yet still fall far short of that ideal.

I see no reason to think that Gene Roddenberry did not believe in a better future, in a world where there is no more racism, no more war, no more disease, no more poverty, no more prejudice, no more class oppression, no more oppression, period -- while also being a guy who manipulated people, cheated on his wife, abused his authority to sexually harass women, and stole credit for others' work. Even a douchebag can believe in a better future.

 

[BillJ]

A strange bit of spin, there. The Salt Vampire species was already functionally extinct, and the last individual in that species was trying to kill someone. The only way to save that person's life was to kill the Salt Vampire. In other words, they killed one individual to save an innocent life from his predations; they did not engage in a massive campaign of genocide.

KIRK: Medical department report, Doctor.
MCCOY: Oh. Well, we could offer it salt without tricks. There's no reason for it to attack us.
SPOCK: Your attitude is laudable, Doctor, but your reasoning is reckless.
CRATER: (eyeing McCoy carefully) The creature is not dangerous when fed.
MCCOY: No, it's simply trying to survive by using its natural ability to take other forms.
CRATER: The way the chameleon uses its protective colouring, an ability retained no doubt from its primitive state, the way we have retained our incisor teeth. They were once fangs. Certain of our muscles were designed for chase. It uses its ability the way we would use our muscles and teeth if necessary, to stay alive.
MCCOY: And like us, it's an intelligent animal. There's no need to hunt it down.
SPOCK: A very interesting hypothesis, Doctor.

They didn't even try to give it salt...

 

[Captain Mike]

If he'll lie once about Star Trek or a hundred times, what makes you think the crap he's fed you about an optimistic future isn't just that, crap? What makes you think he wasn't just peddling a placebo that he knew would sell to the masses thus keeping his cash-flow going?

That seems like an odd question to me. Roddenberry's "vision" -- insofar as he had one; I think that people tend to exaggerate how well-developed his ideas really were -- wasn't built on his own personal credibility. His ideas did not boil down to, "I am the way, the truth, the light" or obedience to him. He wasn't selling himself.

Rather, he was selling the idea that society can be better. That scientific advancement, combined with social progress (cultural diversity, greater cultural syncretism, a renunciation of aggression and domination), can produce a society where things like poverty, disease, war (amongst human, anyway), racism, and class domination have been eliminated. He was, in short, selling the idea that the future can get better and humanity is not static or trapped in an endless cycle of wars, empires, and tyranny.

This is not something unique to Roddenberry. It is, in fact, optimism about the future that's very common to science fiction in general -- it's one of the things that distinguishes science fiction from other genres. And while I certainly think that more dystopian fiction is valuable and good, I also think that Roddenberry's and other SF writers' brands of historical optimism make for very good storytelling.

And not a lick of it has anything to do with Roddenberry's personal failings. Saying that the idea of a better future is just crap because Gene Roddenberry wasn't always a stand-up guy is -- to make an extreme comparison -- like saying that the idea of racial equality and inter-racial peace and unity is crap because Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. MLK wasn't selling himself, he was selling an IDEA. So was Roddenberry.

This^

Nevertheless, wouldn't you say that Star Trek, by and large, does indeed portray an optimistic view of humanity and its future? Sure, it is by no means an original idea, but still, I always found that quite appealing about the show(s).

I think it depends largely on which series we're talking about. In The Original Series, we have a crew who exterminates the Salt Vampire, was going to do the same to the Horta to keep mineral production going, was going to shoot first and ask questions later in regards to the Gorn and was going to slaughter a good amount of folks on Eminiar VII. I'm not sure they were that far removed from us modern humans in their outlook on life.

Which brings me to another nit, Roddenberry was given credit for the racial diversity on TOS when in fact it was NBC that was the ones interested in portraying racial diversity.

I understand that some people can get soured on a work of art when they learn its creator had some serious shortcomings but that doesn't make what once appealed to you any less present in it, does it? I guess, I'm approaching art more from an "it's what you make of it" angle.

I'll admit that my own life experiences with infidelity and the effects it can have on children play a part in why I've soured on Roddenberry over the years...

And yet again it comes down to his personal fallings. Were you there as he was struggling to make it as a writer, with a "nobody" wife that didn't understand the "craft" of being a writer?...Hell I don't and never would. I WAS NOT there during all his struggle's.
You admit to being infallible and experience in infidelity...." May He be without Sin, Cast the first stone"...

 

[BillJ]

And yet again it comes down to his personal fallings. Were you there as he was struggling to make it as a writer, with a "nobody" wife that didn't understand the "craft" of being a writer?...Hell I don't and never would. I WAS NOT there during all his struggle's.

Do you actually read the shit you write before clicking 'Submit'?

You admit to being infallible and experience in infidelity...." May He be without Sin, Cast the first stone"...

I was the child involved. It scars you for life...

 

[Captain Mike]

You admit to being infallible and experience in infidelity...." May He be without Sin, Cast the first stone"...

I was the child involved. It scars you for life...

Did you ever think about corresponding with Rod? Seems to me he accepted it and is cashing in on his FATHERS "vision".
I agree that parents being that way is memorable...but ALL situations are NEVER the same...You have one view that certainly has tainted your life...I too had a parent that was unfaithful..BUT I have seen many a thing that I could understand why. To place one subject in the place of another is just so ridiculous

 

[sunburn800]

I learned a long time ago that Heros are never what they appear to be at first glance, they all have their failings. Star trek was never about Roddenberry he just thought it up, the actors and writers put the heart and soul into star trek and made it what it is today.

 

[Captain Mike]

I learned a long time ago that Heros are never what they appear to be at first glance, they all have their failings. Star trek was never about Roddenberry he just thought it up, the actors and writers put the heart and soul into star trek and made it what it is today.

Well put!...

 

[BillJ]

Did you ever think about corresponding with Rod? Seems to me he accepted it and is cashing in on his FATHERS "vision".

Rod is as big a tool as his father... all you have to do is watch TrekNation to see that.

I agree that parents being that way is memorable...but ALL situations are NEVER the same...You have one view that certainly has tainted your life...I too had a parent that was unfaithful..BUT I have seen many a thing that I could understand why. To place one subject in the place of another is just so ridiculous

No it's really not. The parties involved are grown-ups, they have the power in the situation, all it takes is four words "I am not happy". Or they can be children and subject their children to emotional trauma...

And yet again it comes down to his personal fallings. Were you there as he was struggling to make it as a writer, with a "nobody" wife that didn't understand the "craft" of being a writer?...Hell I don't and never would. I WAS NOT there during all his struggle's.

How would you feel if your wife or significant other started banging another dude behind your back and when finally caught uses "you just don't understand" as a defense?

It's not that Roddenberry made mistakes that caused me to lose complete respect for him. It's that he made the same mistakes over and over throughout life til the bitter end. For all the talk about treating each other with respect it never, ever rubbed off him.

 

[Captain Mike]

Did you ever think about corresponding with Rod? Seems to me he accepted it and is cashing in on his FATHERS "vision".

Rod is as big a tool as his father... all you have to do is watch TrekNation to see that.

I agree that parents being that way is memorable...but ALL situations are NEVER the same...You have one view that certainly has tainted your life...I too had a parent that was unfaithful..BUT I have seen many a thing that I could understand why. To place one subject in the place of another is just so ridiculous

No it's really not. The parties involved are grown-ups, they have the power in the situation, all it takes is four words "I am not happy". Or they can be children and subject their children to emotional trauma...

And yet again it comes down to his personal fallings. Were you there as he was struggling to make it as a writer, with a "nobody" wife that didn't understand the "craft" of being a writer?...Hell I don't and never would. I WAS NOT there during all his struggle's.

How would you feel if your wife or significant other started banging another dude behind your back and when finally caught uses "you just don't understand" as a defense?

It's not that Roddenberry made mistakes that caused me to lose complete respect for him. It's that he made the same mistakes over and over throughout life til the bitter end. For all the talk about treating each other with respect it never, ever rubbed off him.

I do not choose to discus my parent infedelity here. Everyone here on a Gene Roddenberry post knows your perspective of the man....
BUT this post was NOT supposed to be about the man. But all in all, since he was a cheating adultrious spouse....you disagree with Star Trek's dexcription from most of the posts here?

 

[stj]

Star Trek's progressive vision wasn't Roddenberry's vision, it was something that was in the air, so to speak. Star Trek, like all collective enterprises, was never the product of one person. The names of Gene Coon and D.C. Fontana have been specifically mentioned, no? But Roddenberry was part of Star Trek, and more importantly, the only who cared to remember and claim whatever visionary part made it from the Sixties onto the timeless TV screen. Wouldn't Gene Coon's fans be pleased to credit Coon with part of that, except that Coon didn't seem to want credit for that part?
Roddenberry gets the credit (or blame) by default. There's no sensible way to blame him for that.

As for his personal failings, two thousand years of Christianity haven't seen the Holy Spirit make people any better, yet somehow we seem to have progressed beyond blood feuds and duels and slavery and all sorts of things. People are pretty much the same, everywhere and every time, but what matters are the social systems. Thinking people are going to create a better world by actually becoming better is superstition. Roddenberry wasn't going to usher in a Federation society by force of his personal goodness, because that's not the way the world works. And getting all hateful on him because he failed to be Federation Man in his own person comes from the same kind of backward view of society.

 

[Harvey]

Wouldn't Gene Coon's fans be pleased to credit Coon with part of that, except that Coon didn't seem to want credit for that part?

Coon died of cancer in July of 1973, five years after leaving his job producing Star Trek for personal and financial reasons. During that period, he was an incredibly busy television writer (authoring 27 episodes, including four for Star Trek under the pseudonym 'Lee Cronin'). He didn't have time to take credit for everything like Roddenberry did.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If I might try my hand at giving an answer to Captain Mike's question, Star Trek is about a lot of things. But for me, it's mainly about tolerance, open-mindedness, the desire for excellence and betterment, friendship, dignity, integrity and many other things that have to do with humanity's positive potential and that are so rare in the "real" world.

Thank you, that is the type of answers I am looking for. I too feel that is part of the equation. Not something that is just some "story set in space", but a story with a morality lesson about the human condition I can agree with.

Well, I like my Trek to be a little more complex than that. Stories about making hard choices, choices that have consequences ( and not always positive ones) villains who aren't mustache twirlers and heroes who aren't perfect. Episodes like Balance of Terror, City on the Edge of Forever, A Private Little War and Where No Man Has Gone Before come to mind. I also like a touch of humor. Trouble With Tribbles and I, Mudd[./I] Star Trek should always try and tell all types of stories. Action/Adventure, "Morality Plays", comedy, parody. satire and everything in between.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Damn skippy. TNG and its spinoffs started making all these rules and expectations for what Trek could be, and it started getting trimmed and molded to fit in this neat little box they were building for Star Trek.

 

[Captain Mike]

If I might try my hand at giving an answer to Captain Mike's question, Star Trek is about a lot of things. But for me, it's mainly about tolerance, open-mindedness, the desire for excellence and betterment, friendship, dignity, integrity and many other things that have to do with humanity's positive potential and that are so rare in the "real" world.

Thank you, that is the type of answers I am looking for. I too feel that is part of the equation. Not something that is just some "story set in space", but a story with a morality lesson about the human condition I can agree with.

Well, I like my Trek to be a little more complex than that. Stories about making hard choices, choices that have consequences ( and not always positive ones) villains who aren't mustache twirlers and heroes who aren't perfect. Episodes like Balance of Terror, City on the Edge of Forever, A Private Little War and Where No Man Has Gone Before come to mind. I also like a touch of humor. Trouble With Tribbles and I, Mudd[./I] Star Trek should always try and tell all types of stories. Action/Adventure, "Morality Plays", comedy, parody. satire and everything in between.

I see your point.
I grew up in a time when heroes were heroes and villains were "mustache twirlers". Even Kirk had all the right answers in TOS. He would always have to consult with Spock and McCoy to make his decision, which because he was the brain he consulted his own thinking (logic) AND his heart (McCoy). We were right because they were right. To change the characters would be ..well...NOT the same characters.

I hated the explanation to the story behind "The Enterprise Incident"....