• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why Does D.C. Fontana Never Speak About Trek?

Aike

Commander
Red Shirt
I have never seen any interviews with D.C. Fontana that were published in the last ten-twenty years.

Does she not like to talk about Trek?

And:

Has she ever written anything about her experiences?
 
I have never seen any interviews with D.C. Fontana that were published in the last ten-twenty years.

Does she not like to talk about Trek?

What about this?
http://morjana-subductionleadstooro.../star-trek-sheknows-dc-fontana-interview.html

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=12419

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/bst/article/2843.html

DC Fontana has done many interviews over the years, but the media tends to interview people who are currently working on shows. I met her at a science fiction convention in New Zealand (which she attended with Dennis Skotek, her SPFX whiz husbad) and she loves chatting ST.

She recently did publicity for IDW's "Year 4" comics, because she wrote "The Enterprise Experiment" for them. Before that, she wrote "New Voyages: To Serve All My Days" fanfilm, featuring Walter Koenig, and did some interviews.
 
There's a whole featurette named after her on the "Star Trek Remastered" DVD set! It's an interview called "Writer's Notebook - D.C. Fontana". I really respect how much experience she has with Star Trek, her enthusiasm about Star Trek, and the fact that she's done so much great writing in different Star Trek shows. I was very happy to read an interview where she said how much she loved DS9 for the excellent characters and character development.
 
Alright, we've established that she does talk Star Trek. However, one must also realize that there is a lot more to her life than just this one show. I know as proud as I am about certain accomplishments in my life, at times I get tired of talking about them, too. Especially if I've been talking about them for 40 years.
I know I went to a lecture she gave at my university some years ago, and she gave the entire talk without mentioning Star Trek. Her talk was about screen writing, and it was very interesting and informative.
At the end, when someone did mention Trek, she was quite happy and accomodating to answer any and all questions.
 
Alright, we've established that she does talk Star Trek. However, one must also realize that there is a lot more to her life than just this one show. I know as proud as I am about certain accomplishments in my life, at times I get tired of talking about them, too. Especially if I've been talking about them for 40 years.
I know I went to a lecture she gave at my university some years ago, and she gave the entire talk without mentioning Star Trek. Her talk was about screen writing, and it was very interesting and informative.
.


Reminds me of the time Leonard Nimoy spoke at my college back in the eighties. The poor guy was trying to promote his tv show, IN SEARCH OF, which he was heavily involved with at the time, but every time he took a question from the audience, it was about Spock and STAR TREK. He was gracious about it, but it must have been kind of frustrating. (I don't think anybody asked a question about IN SEARCH OF all night!)
 
D.C. also (co-?)wrote the story for the "Star Trek: Legacy" game. That was only, what, two years ago?

Everything I've ever read about her contributions to TOS and TNG make me think she is due a lot of credit that she doesn't get. For that, she could (and I'm not saying she necessarily is) be a bit weary of talking Trek too much.
Has she seen the movie? I'd be curious to hear her take on it.
Me too.
 
She recently did publicity for IDW's "Year 4" comics,

Not her best work IMO, but we can forgive her this time I think ;)

Interesting how many of the top flight episodes were written by D.C. - we owe her a lot, and it would have been fascinating to see how a Justman-produced, Fontana-script edited third season might have turned out.
 
I would be surprised if D.C. Fontana would feel good about how her work was taken by the new Star Trek production... haven't heard any kudos from JJ or Orci/Kurtzman for DC... let alone any remuneration for basically lifting a couple of her scenes for the movie... And next week comes more rip off of DC, "Land of the Lost"... yet, DC is never mentioned as a creative force for that either... I would think she would be feeling a bit dejected.
 
It's weird. As a struggling writer, I know that my mindset right now is geared towards the idea that I would be incredibly grateful to have that one thing that managed to break through into the world and make an impact, even change a few lives for the better (which I believe Star Trek did). But at the same time, I know that as an artist I would be frustrated to find my efforts to tell new stories beyond that one moment of brilliance being met with indifference or entirely too much dedication to that one moment of brilliance.

If that makes sense.

The closest I can come to it can be drawn from my experience writing stage plays. The first one I ever wrote was a pretty decent hit, seeing productions in Chicago, Philadelphia, my old high school and a prestigious theater festival in Richmond. At certain points, it was even very nearly adapted into both comic book and short film form. I spent a good couple of years after that focusing my time and energy on other plays, some of which were far and away (in my opinion) much better than that first effort. But I could never get any of them out the door. The only luck I ever had with stage plays always came back to that first one.

It's nothing on the level of Fontana or Nimoy, so I guess that's why my mind still has this idea that having one thing hit people on the level that Star Trek has wouldn't be so bad.

Not that they seem bitter about it or anything.

I've since moved on to writing screenplays in the scriptwriting field, but I still occasionally try to shop my stage plays around.

The play saw its biggest success over five years ago. It's still probably the biggest hit I've had as a writer. And in those cases, when enough time passes, you do begin to fear that you only had the one good moment in you.

Again, it's weird.
 
Re: Trek XI borrowing? D.C. Fontana stories

Scenes from "Yesteryear" come to mind when Spock's childhood is explored in the new movie.

I checked Memory Alpha.

Sarek's dialog to Spock, regarding logic offering "a serenity humans seldom experience," is revisited in the 2009 Star Trek film.
"Yesteryear" was penned by D.C. Fontana, a writer and story consultant for the original series, who also served as the animated series producer. "Yesteryear" is the sequel to the original series episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison and ties in with the TOS episodes "Journey to Babel" and "Amok Time".
# Fontana re-used the plot of this episode the same year for an episode of Land of the Lost entitled "Elsewhen".
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Yesteryear
 
It's weird. As a struggling writer, I know that my mindset right now is geared towards the idea that I would be incredibly grateful to have that one thing that managed to break through into the world and make an impact, even change a few lives for the better (which I believe Star Trek did). But at the same time, I know that as an artist I would be frustrated to find my efforts to tell new stories beyond that one moment of brilliance being met with indifference or entirely too much dedication to that one moment of brilliance.

If that makes sense.

The closest I can come to it can be drawn from my experience writing stage plays. The first one I ever wrote was a pretty decent hit, seeing productions in Chicago, Philadelphia, my old high school and a prestigious theater festival in Richmond. At certain points, it was even very nearly adapted into both comic book and short film form. I spent a good couple of years after that focusing my time and energy on other plays, some of which were far and away (in my opinion) much better than that first effort. But I could never get any of them out the door. The only luck I ever had with stage plays always came back to that first one.

It's nothing on the level of Fontana or Nimoy, so I guess that's why my mind still has this idea that having one thing hit people on the level that Star Trek has wouldn't be so bad.

Not that they seem bitter about it or anything.

I've since moved on to writing screenplays in the scriptwriting field, but I still occasionally try to shop my stage plays around.

The play saw its biggest success over five years ago. It's still probably the biggest hit I've had as a writer. And in those cases, when enough time passes, you do begin to fear that you only had the one good moment in you.

Again, it's weird.

Well barnaclelapse, there's no accounting for taste! Success is a kind of alchemy, and those in the business all their lives still don't know, exactly, what makes a hit a hit. That's why you see so many duplications, and yet, some new blood comes along and changes the game with a low-budget wonder, and a story that resonates.

Congratulations on your success!

In fact, you do see a lot of Trek actors bucking against being typecast. Goes with the territory. As for writers, they are too often the last to get recognized!

DC Fontana is a great storyteller. I love her episodes.
 
Didn't she also co-create TNG with Roddenberry, Justman, and Gerrold, for which no0ne of them (aside from Roddenberry) got any credit?

Fontana on canon:

IDW: In today’s world, especially in a property like Star Trek, that has seen stories told in movies, TV episodes, novels, comic books, video games, e-books and even Internet-based fan media, too, the question of what constitutes “canon” is very much an ongoing debate. The episode you wrote for Star Trek: the Animated Series, “Yesteryear,” is the only one that contains material that is considered canon. What makes it canonical while the others aren’t?

DOROTHY FONTANA: I suppose "canon" means what Gene Roddenberry decided it was. Remember, we were making it up as we went along on the original series (and on the animated one, too). We had a research company to keep us on the straight and narrow as to science, projected science based on known science, science fiction references (we didn’t want to step on anyone’s exclusive ideas in movies, other TV shows, or printed work). They also helped prevent contradictions and common reference errors. So the so-called canon evolved in its own way and its own time. For whatever reason, Gene Roddenberry apparently didn’t take the animated series seriously (no pun intended), although we worked very hard to do original STAR TREK stories and concepts at all times in the animated series. What freed us there was the fact that we could do environments and aliens without the constraints of sets, makeup and costumes that would have been difficult to do in live action. The research company also worked on this series, again to keep us within rules we had set up in the original series and to keep references in terms of science/science fiction etc. accurate.

IDW: And a follow-up to that question, what does “canon” mean to you? Do fans put too great an emphasis on what is canon instead of just what makes a good story?

DOROTHY FONTANA: I like a good story— but there are certain basic ground rules established which I don’t think can be easily tossed aside. I really hated it when one of the features (STAR TREK V) came up with a half brother for Spock when I had always insisted he had no other siblings. But I guess it isn’t "canon" if I wrote it. Go figure.
 
Reminds me of the time Leonard Nimoy spoke at my college back in the eighties. The poor guy was trying to promote his tv show, IN SEARCH OF, which he was heavily involved with at the time, but every time he took a question from the audience, it was about Spock and STAR TREK. He was gracious about it, but it must have been kind of frustrating. (I don't think anybody asked a question about IN SEARCH OF all night!)


Not surprising. I mean, he's been in other shows and movies but does anyone really remember? Spock is the most dominant.


Just like the guy from the Mac commercials. He's been in movies but people always say "hey, you're the guy from the Mac commercials!!"
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top