He would add lyrics to Giacchino's intrumental theme music, then claim half of the composer royalties.
What would Roddenberry want in XI??
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
- Status
Hilarious!
That's just the opinion of the Reaganite right. The sixties were about doing what you could for your country, not for yourself. They were about selflessness.
What's wrong with morality, anyway? It would seem to me that the only people who don't like it are the amoral and immoral.
ST heroes aren't perfect, they're just more evolved and controlled and socially aware and responsible than we. They're supposed to be role models- at least they were for me. This is what ST has been all about to date, though you seem to be determined to rewrite history.
Then how do you explain Hippies?
The most effective role model is somebody the audience can at least identify with. You're dealing with a new generation right now consisting of people who grew up on the mantra of "You can be anything you want to be!" Which on the one hand opens a universe of possibilities, but on the other hand puts more weight on the question "What the hell do I want to be?"
To that generation, a morally and socially perfect individual with clarity may be an ideal, but doesn't represent a role model as such. You appeal better with a character who begins without moral or social clarity and, though personal revelation or soul searching, suddenly discovers a sense of purpose and then dedicates his entire life to the pursuit that newfound dream. In short, not the James T. Kirk who is career Starfleet craddle to the grave, but the James T. Kirk who used to steal cars and and get drunk before he got his ass in gear and decided "Maybe there is something better I could be doing?"
Guess again. That's the life experience of someone who was young and took part in the later days of the anti-war movement. Where were you?
You keep lecturing people about what "Star Trek" is based on your idealized personal opinions of the Franchise and recent history as well as generally simplistic notions of what constitutes morality and "altruism." It's just not at all persuasive.
Then why is everybody waiting for someone to do what Gene Roddenberry did again ?
Everybody is not, so that premise is false. Some dedicated Trek fans are, and that's self-reinforcing.
i think there is a real possibility JJ could do it but to juggle the metaphisics if very very difficult - great music, great story (script), great vision. Believability is a very tricky thing. It's like a Brahms symphony. If one word or sentence is wrong the whole structure could collapse. So far so good, he's got the epic vision thing going and direction and designs and special effects..
No, I don't. I base my opinions about what ST is about, going on what I saw as a seven year old in the 70's and what I can still see as a 42 year old now. I go on what Roddenberry,Justman,Meyer, Kelley,Bennet,Berman and Nimoy have said.
Starship, you're perceptive enough to see the message in most of the episodes, you've explained some of them in earlier posts. Why you find morality offensive, I don't know. Morality was invented to control the behaviour of humans in groups in order for them to survive. It's a good thing. If we lose it, it's bad. Life may not be as good. We might not survive.
What's all this about you being a long hair in the sixties? You're not the Darth Vader of the Star Trek BBS, are you?
Last edited:
No, but Starship Polaris has actually written an episode of Trek -- have you?
Why you presume that he does find morality offensive, I don't understand. Upon what do you base this?
I think we've got a mixup on just what is the central core of Star Trek, and thus a misunderstanding of what Roddenberry was trying to do, and what he'd want done with a new Star Trek project.
So many keep citing the "optimism", but that's not the central core of the thing. It was a big part of the appeal of the show, particularly during a period of history when "Doctor Strangelove" looked more like a documentary than a dark comedy, but it wasn't the real mission of the show. And it also lies at the heart of why trying to turn Star Trek into a big, sprawling Star Wars-esque space epic is doomed to failure.
Put simply, Star Trek is a setting and format which allows writers to tell stories about deep, burning issues in such a way that it allows the viewer to look at things in a different way, to hold up a mirror to humanity and let it see what its strengths and flaws really are, and most importantly, to get people to think. One of the key mottos of the show was "There is an intelligent life form out on the other side of that television tube!" If all Roddenberry was interested in was making money, he could've easily caved in to the network memos and cranked out something indistinquishable from Lost in Space, been totally inoffensive, NBC would've promoted the hell out of it, and might very well have gotten the whole five years, and done quite well in syndication.
But because they did fight to maintain the integrity of the show, and for the kinds of stories they wanted to tell, it was able to transcend the typical lot of mid-60's shows and go on to become a legend.
Paramount, however, has yet to grasp this aspect of the show, and only sees the superficial aspects (big ship, zap guns, guy with pointy ears, etc.), equates it with the other big franchise with big ships and zap guns, Star Wars, and can't quite figure out that the kind of stories that Star Trek does best are primarily character driven, personal, deal with some pretty weighty issues, and would probably not make for very good blockbuster movies, whereas big sprawling epics are primarily plot driven, not a lot of room for character development, and usually not concerned with tackling pressing societal issues. They do go for lots of 'sposions, though, and folks gettin' blowed up good (usually with some tough guy cradling them, growling, "Don't you die on me!")
I need to dig up my copy of "Inside Star Trek" (the album, not the book) and transcribe Roddenberry's lecture on just what Star Trek was and why we had the Star Trek Phenomenon. To paraphrase his point, those trying to ascribe some mystical or scriptural brilliance to Star Trek are missing the point, because the magic of Star Trek isn't in the show, it's in the audience.
So many keep citing the "optimism", but that's not the central core of the thing. It was a big part of the appeal of the show, particularly during a period of history when "Doctor Strangelove" looked more like a documentary than a dark comedy, but it wasn't the real mission of the show. And it also lies at the heart of why trying to turn Star Trek into a big, sprawling Star Wars-esque space epic is doomed to failure.
Put simply, Star Trek is a setting and format which allows writers to tell stories about deep, burning issues in such a way that it allows the viewer to look at things in a different way, to hold up a mirror to humanity and let it see what its strengths and flaws really are, and most importantly, to get people to think. One of the key mottos of the show was "There is an intelligent life form out on the other side of that television tube!" If all Roddenberry was interested in was making money, he could've easily caved in to the network memos and cranked out something indistinquishable from Lost in Space, been totally inoffensive, NBC would've promoted the hell out of it, and might very well have gotten the whole five years, and done quite well in syndication.
But because they did fight to maintain the integrity of the show, and for the kinds of stories they wanted to tell, it was able to transcend the typical lot of mid-60's shows and go on to become a legend.
Paramount, however, has yet to grasp this aspect of the show, and only sees the superficial aspects (big ship, zap guns, guy with pointy ears, etc.), equates it with the other big franchise with big ships and zap guns, Star Wars, and can't quite figure out that the kind of stories that Star Trek does best are primarily character driven, personal, deal with some pretty weighty issues, and would probably not make for very good blockbuster movies, whereas big sprawling epics are primarily plot driven, not a lot of room for character development, and usually not concerned with tackling pressing societal issues. They do go for lots of 'sposions, though, and folks gettin' blowed up good (usually with some tough guy cradling them, growling, "Don't you die on me!")
I need to dig up my copy of "Inside Star Trek" (the album, not the book) and transcribe Roddenberry's lecture on just what Star Trek was and why we had the Star Trek Phenomenon. To paraphrase his point, those trying to ascribe some mystical or scriptural brilliance to Star Trek are missing the point, because the magic of Star Trek isn't in the show, it's in the audience.
I don't find "morality offensive." Granted I generally find anyone's conviction that they know the "true morality" that everyone should live by a tad annoying, but I think I have that in common with six or seven billion other people.
The elevation of simplistic notions of morality above the real aims and worthwhile qualities of good fiction is offensive. Those who judge the value of literature primarily by what they see as its moral content or its contribution to morality devalue real imagination and creativity. It's an assertion of false authority and therefore a harbinger of censorship - not to mention, just plain boredom.
Teaching morality is not what fiction written for adults is for, which is a damned good thing - I've known a lot of writers, and anyone who'd take advice from most of us about how to live life would have to have rocks in their head.
Last edited:
Wow, I think there's a few who should take this to heart.
I don't find "morality offensive." Granted I generally find anyone's conviction that they know the "true morality" that everyone should live by a tad annoying, but I think I have that in common with six or seven billion other people.
The elevation of simplistic notions of morality above the real aims and worthwhile qualities of good fiction is offensive. Those who judge the value of literature primarily by what they see as its moral content or its contribution to morality devalue real imagination and creativity. It's an assertion of false authority and therefore a harbinger of censorship - not to mention, just plain boredom.
Teaching morality is not what fiction written for adults is for, which is a damned good thing - I've known a lot of writers, and anyone who'd take advice from most of us about how to live life would have to have rocks in their head.
Writers have tried to influence the way people think for aeons, not just politically, Starship. It's not just about entertaining people. All good fiction makes statements. I watched the Voyager episode Demons last night, one I have never seen before. There was a very clear message about the sanctity of life.
As a matter of fact, you're the very first writer I've encountered who has said this. I've had work published, and I don't fit in to the 6 or 7 billion who dislike a story with a moral. How do you explain 'Wagon Train'? That was aimed at an adult audience and every episode had a message, and a deep one too. I have a copy of the TNG writers guide and that ties with what I have said. Didn't you get a copy when you submitted your script, or did you just decide to write your own guidleines?
I think you're single-handedly trying to re-write the world to your liking
Every interview I've read with Roddenberry and some with Majel has said that he was trying to influence public opinion in some way. I find it offensive that you choose to ignore all of this and say that it was just action adventure. YOU are usiing a medium to try to influence public opinion! Nor was the morality simplistic- Encounter wasn't.
Amazing that you've written some ST, despite your depressing world view.
M'Sharak;
Starship said we needed a 'barf smiley' when someone talked about morality. Or, perhaps he didn't really mean that. Can we really know?
This is fascinating for me. I've been watching this stuff since I was seven and I read and thought that the people who were making it were doing it for this reason. It never occured to me that soem people might just be watching it and liking it for the space battles.
Last edited:
How does not wanting someone elses views of morality and ethics shoved down your throat equal a depressing world view?
This isn't Church of Trek. If it were I would abhore it as much as I do organized religion. *barf smiley*
It isn't lecturing people. It's putting forward a view of a different world and seeing whether or not people like it. You don't force it down people's throats, you just see whether it rings with them or not. You don't have to watch Star Trek, but plenty of people do. It MIGHT just be the action adventure with some, but even as a seven year old I could see the message.
I'm open minded, I've met people who didn't like ST, but most of them have a reading age of a nine year old and hate morality.
ST is a wide church. I suppose there has to be someone in it who puts black censor marks through all of Roddenberry's, (and others) words on the subject and is sure they know better about it than he does.
I'm open minded, I've met people who didn't like ST, but most of them have a reading age of a nine year old and hate morality.
ST is a wide church. I suppose there has to be someone in it who puts black censor marks through all of Roddenberry's, (and others) words on the subject and is sure they know better about it than he does.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
