What would Roddenberry want in XI??
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
- Status
I am being serious - those are things he suggested for either the films or the TV series.
Noone knows what GR would want if he was alive and in charge in the year 2008.
Trying to guess is futile and not really valid in my mind,since many will project their own desires and claim this is what GR would have done, so I won't try...
Looking forward to all the other answers though
Trying to guess is futile and not really valid in my mind,since many will project their own desires and claim this is what GR would have done, so I won't try...
Looking forward to all the other answers though
Who gives a crap? He's dead.
I have to question why were even considering...this question. We cannot pick Gene's brain from our earthly vantage point. More to that point, Gene's influence, his light if you will, went out of Star Trek decades ago, and we muddled through the Bennet/Myers and the Berman/Braga dynasties and finally ended up in this situation.
With all do respect to the thread MC, this question is quite moot.
The question "What would Roddenberry want in XI??" is posed at the beginning of this topic as a rhetorical one to which the OP has a preferred answer.
The better answer, however, is given by several posters above: we do not know.
What GR set out to accomplish in 1964 was not the "Star Trek" that a great number of talented writers, producers and designers delivered for four years under his administration, and what he chose to do with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was in some respects a continuation and in others an abbrogation of the original three year television series.
Add to that the also above-referenced fact that Roddenberry had no fewer materialistic, self-interested aspects to his nature than any other man and seemed to have as many half-baked, flaky ideas as great ones. Anyone who thinks that they know or can prove what Roddenberry would have thought of any of the Trek projects since his passing is engaging in intellectual masturbation.
The better answer, however, is given by several posters above: we do not know.
What GR set out to accomplish in 1964 was not the "Star Trek" that a great number of talented writers, producers and designers delivered for four years under his administration, and what he chose to do with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was in some respects a continuation and in others an abbrogation of the original three year television series.
Add to that the also above-referenced fact that Roddenberry had no fewer materialistic, self-interested aspects to his nature than any other man and seemed to have as many half-baked, flaky ideas as great ones. Anyone who thinks that they know or can prove what Roddenberry would have thought of any of the Trek projects since his passing is engaging in intellectual masturbation.
^^^
Well said, Dennis.
We are, after all, talking about the GR who was pushing for "The Adventures of Lwaxana Troi" while Berman and Piller were proposing "Deep Space Nine."
Well said, Dennis.
We are, after all, talking about the GR who was pushing for "The Adventures of Lwaxana Troi" while Berman and Piller were proposing "Deep Space Nine."
To shoot the breeze about Star Trek -- isn't that the point of the entire forum, let alone this subforum about the film?
I expect that if asked Gene would just heap praise upon Abrahams and the crew and say what a pleasure it was to work with Spock again and how he hoped the best for a re-start of the franchise.
I cannot think he would necessarily want to see a retread of his original work when you could easily have done something new with the property along the same lines with different characters.
Didn't Red Dwarf end up doing that story?
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
"I read Roddenberry's JFK story treatment years ago. It really has been a long time since I read it, but I recall that Spock did NOT kill JFK, contrary to rumor. There were a lot of dramatic elements in the story, including a devastating attack on the Federation, the death of Sarek and Amanda, the Enterprise crashing in the arctic tundra, and a very different version of the Klingons. It certainly would have been far more expensive to make than Star Trek IV or any of the Trek films, with the possible exception of Star Trek: TMP." - Mike Okuda at TrekBBS.com circa 2005.
TGT
It is my understanding that GR pitched the whole JFK/time travel plot several times over the years. Didn't he pitch it as far back as STII and up until at least STIV? It seems likely that the general story remained the same while details (e.g., Spock killing JFK) changed over time.
Well, I think they should do that one as the sequel to Star Trek (that is the film's official title, isn't it?)...
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
My general dislike of time-travel plots aside, I would prefer not to take a stand on GR's treatment one way or the other until Lincoln Enterprises actually markets the damned thing (preferably along with the script of my namesake). As it stands, I am somewhat more inclined to believe Okuda's description than I am Bennett's.
TGT
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
