Your Opinion: Is "Star Trek" Better or Worse Without Gene Roddenberry?

[Moviefan2k4]

OK, let me offer a preface to this right away - this thread is not being created, to tarnish Gene personally, insult his family, or pick on those who respect him. Having said that, I am trying to present an alternate side to the argument that I've often heard from "Star Trek" fans, about the franchise's creator being "super-brilliant", "a revolutionary", "a genius"...take your pick.

Gene died in October of 1991. I was 11 years old then, so I never got to meet him. But I've read a bit about his life, and I've seen some interviews with his son Rod and the "TNG" cast. Most are pretty complimentary, and seeing as they were either related or worked closely with him, I can understand some of the praise. But beyond his career as a writer, I really think Gene had some deep personal problems. He insisted that no character in "Star Trek" should ever have any addictions, yet he smoked, drank, and used cocaine on a regular basis. He also stepped out on his wife Majel repeatedly, carrying on an extended affair with his executive assistant Susan Sackett, from 1975 until his death.

Now, I don't mention these things to paint him as a monster - we all have things that we fight against, and some of them are so bad that we often don't want anyone else to know about them. But for someone like Gene, with all his flaws, to somehow concoct a story about flawless or perfect people, living in a future utopia where we have magically evolved to the point that all our controversial differences just evaporate? It might make for interesting fiction, but in reality I just don't see it happening. For me, some of the best "Trek" episodes and movies were where the writers and characters dared to branch out, beyond that initial philosophy. For example, there's an episode of "Voyager" where B'Elanna Torres meets her dead father, in the Klingon afterlife. Given Gene's adamant stance regarding humanism, I strongly doubt he would've approved that story being made. But as a viewer, I think it was very brave and creative, taking a risk to steer the franchise in a new direction.

So, what do you all think? Do you like Gene's "perfect people" approach? Do you hate it, or are you somewhere in between? Thanks for reading.

 

[cal888]

What's hard with this one is GR was only really the showrunner for the first 13 or so episodes of TOS (I believe Gene L Coon took over as of "Miri") and TNG up until "Coming of Age" (when Rick Berman and Maurice Hurley saw off Leonard M. the Lawyer and sent GR and Majel on a Hawaii vacation). Everything else is shades of delegation.

 

[Lord Garth]

Better Off.

But not because of what you might think. I like Roddenberry Trek. TOS, TAS, TMP, even the first two seasons of TNG for the most part. The problem is Gene Roddenberry was also against most of the TOS Movies and became a hindrance behind-the-scenes on TNG. The less involved he was with TNG, the better the series got. It's great that he created Star Trek and created the sandbox for everyone to play in, but then he let his creation get to his head and it began to straight-jacket the writers.

The same thing happened with Rick Berman. He was good for Star Trek until he wasn't. In the mid-'00s it was said that, "Without Rick Berman to build up the franchise, there wouldn't have been a Rick Berman to oversee its downfall." He was a steadier producer than Gene Roddenberry, and far more reliable, but that led to a lot of sameness, which was made worse with series that had different premises from each other. If a franchise can't adapt to a changing landscape, and not have so much sameness, it'll die out.

Alex Kurtzman will be next. This is the chance where I'm going to be equally offensive to both sides. It's great that he's made five, soon to be six, Star Trek series with more projects in the pipeline. Different Treks for different shades of fans. Only problem is: it's too far spread out, and now it gives people too many different ideas of what Star Trek should be. It's the exact opposite of the problem that developed under Rick Berman, where there was too much sameness. When the Kurtzman Era is over and the question is asked, "What should Star Trek do next?", you'll get 20 different answers in a room with five people. Not that this wasn't a problem during the second half of the Berman Era, but it's become even more of an issue under Kurtzman.

But back to Gene Roddenberry: I think his vision of an Evolved Humanity is great. It's just that it doesn't mean much if it's not tested against things that would seriously challenge it.

 

[JamesRye]

Roddenberrys influence remained until the end of the Enterprise era. It made Star Trek unique. Sure, DS9 pushed the boundaries. But Star Trek said the future would be better and that people would be better.

For better or worse, we now have a darker Star Trek. One where characters delight in the possibility of killing, the infamous "yum yum" comment springs to mind. We have a Star Trek where a genocidal dictator is somehow lauded as being able to get things done and is given a job in Starfleet.

It's become a bit like Star Wars, obsessed with violence and pew pew space combat rather than ideas and science driven scripts. And, like Star Wars, it's obsessed with callbacks.

And rather than being about the future, its morphed into being a reflection on its own past. Strange New Worlds is just the 60s vision of the future with a big budget rather than being something new. Everything is a prequel and unoriginal referencing the past.

It's very hard to write without character conflict. The conflict has to come from without, not.within in Genes Star Trek. Hence the revolving door of writers on TNG.

 

[ananta]

Better. He was the man that pioneered everything, albeit with a lot of help along the way, particularly Gene Coon, who I think was responsible for TOS at its peak (and, um, also “Spock’s Brain”; we all have our good days and bad days, huh). Interestingly, most of the Roddenberry penned episodes weren’t that good, but he was responsible for rewriting some of the greats. Maybe he was a better rewriter than writer?

He was the driving force behind my favourite Trek film, TMP and ironically a hindrance to the rest of the TOS movies, which I loved to varying degrees. He also struck gold with TNG. Even though the first couple of seasons were flawed to say the least, and Gene’s direct involvement rapidly diminished, I still enjoy rewatching those two seasons over the last couple of seasons which feel incredibly tired and complacent.

So, I have to say that I prefer the Roddenberry era (even though I love DS9 and like some of the new shows). We simply wouldn’t have Trek without him and he definitely created and pioneered something unique and kept it alive over the years.

 

[somebuddyX]

He invented the "Justice" planet whose people wanted to both fuck all day and kill Wesley Crusher, so what's not to love about the guy.

 

[Kinky Kim Hunterbiden]

TOS is better with Roddenberry. TNG is not, if we're David Gerroldites.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Better.

Despite creating Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry was not the best writer for Star Trek. I would rank Gene Coon, D.C. Fontana, Nicholas Meyer, and several others ahead of him. There's a reason that his advice was rarely taken on the post-TMP movies, and by the time he got to TNG, he and his lawyer Leonard Maizlish were actively making the show worse. If you ever read the behind the scenes info in the TNG Companion, you'll be amazed at how often the original premise of an episode sounds much more interesting than what it got watered down into in the first 2-3 seasons. (Two examples that spring to mind: Picard realizing that Moriarty has the ability to leave the holodeck in "Elementary, Dear Data" and intentionally keeping that fact from him, and the kid in "The Bonding" recreating his dead mother on the holodeck.)

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Another thread reminded me of the first season TNG episode, Neutral Zone: Gene's future humans are real dicks.

Better without Gene.

 

[Cr0sis21]

There are different periods of Gene.
1960's Gene was great. Lots of good ideas and a willingness to work with others.
1970s and 80's Gene seemed to let his own reputation go to his head. He was maniacal about control, his ideas were starting to date badly, and he had recurring themes he kept wanting to run back to and hammer home, like killer robots and humanity meeting "gods". He was also very, very resentful and wasn't afraid to sabotage the series when he wasn't getting his way.

One person can't steer a franchise that long forever. Gene was great for a while, but eventually needed to retire. He just never wanted to.

 

[Anson Mount Seleya]

Better Without. TOS, its movies and TNG all improved when Roddenberry took a step back and other writers took the reins.

 

[Takeru]

Better without. He was okay during TOS but that was a collaborative production, Coon, Fontana, Justman, Solos and others were fundamental in developing the show and its style over time. After TOS ... eh. TMP and TNG season 1 are Roddenberry post TOS Trek in its purest form and neither is particularly good. There's a reason the general consensus is that both the movies and TNG got better after Roddenberry was pushed out.

 

[Ricky Spanish]

Better and worse. There isn't a Trek character that truly resonates with me that wasn't created by Gene Roddenberry. Star Trek grew up a bit when Roddenberry moved on. Which was good. It also began to take itself ultra-seriously, which wasn't good.

So, it's all a mixed bag from my point-of-view.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Roddenberry changed his options a lot. By the end he said TAS wasn't canon. Star Trek V wasn't canon, and finally all of TOS wasn't canon.

I love that modern Trek owns even the most insane parts of old Trek lore, and revels in it.

 

[ignis fatuus]

There wouldn't be any Trek without Roddenberry, I'll gladly give him that. But I still think that Trek got better when he was finally pushed out, or got too sick to be actively involved.

 

[mb22]

Roddenberry changed his options a lot. By the end he said TAS wasn't canon. Star Trek V wasn't canon, and finally all of TOS wasn't canon.

I don't think he ever formally 'de-canonized' TOS in totality. However, in the 1979 novelization of TMP, he did have Kirk state that chronicles of his adventures 'wee painted somewhat larger than life'.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

But for someone like Gene, with all his flaws, to somehow concoct a story about flawless or perfect people, living in a future utopia where we have magically evolved to the point that all our controversial differences just evaporate? It might make for interesting fiction, but in reality I just don't see it happening. For me, some of the best "Trek" episodes and movies were where the writers and characters dared to branch out, beyond that initial philosophy.

Your questions depend on which era of ST you're talking about; contrary to the agenda of certain fans, or lack of basic research (i.e. watch certain series, and not fall back on post-1960s Roddenberry revisions), TOS (on-screen or referenced history) was not populated with perfect human beings born of a utopia. for a few examples, the series presented characters with undeniable racist perceptions (e.g., Stiles in "Balance of Terror", Boma in "The Galileo Seven", suggestive race issues from Decker in "The Doomsday Machine", et al.), sanctioned mass murder (Kodos the Executioner), people willing to sacrifice any assumed taught values (including handing his own people over to the dictatorial leadership of an alien world) as in the case of Merrick in "Bread and Circuses", wildly unethical mind-control / altering experiments on fellow humans (Dr. Tristan Adams, as seen in "Dagger of the Mind"). The list of ST humans consciously not being remotely perfect goes on and on in TOS.

Thanks to the late 60s news media--and some fans--glossing over the human dysfunction & horrors found in TOS in order to use it as a contrast to the fractured real world of the period (particularly in the United States), this completely false "utopian people / universe" narrative was born, and Roddenberry ran with it during the early convention years, embracing it / conning himself into thinking ST--in TOS--was written that way across the board. Of course, this would lead to his heartless, lifeless characterizations which launched The Next Generation, where people rarely behaved like real humans, instead, they were often a collection of finger-wagging, looking-down-the-nose-at-you characters in a stagnant universe utterly devoid of heart and true human motivations.

For example, there's an episode of "Voyager" where B'Elanna Torres meets her dead father, in the Klingon afterlife. Given Gene's adamant stance regarding humanism, I strongly doubt he would've approved that story being made. But as a viewer, I think it was very brave and creative, taking a risk to steer the franchise in a new direction.

Again, that would depend on which Gene read the script: the one who created his alleged "true" Star Trek in TNG, or the one who--at one period of his life--used to have an open mind?

 

[Radu Molasar]

I’m in the “undecided” camp. TOS had a lot of things fall into place just-so.

1986’s MANHUNTER vibes so hard because of its music.

Without The Reds or Shriekback—it might have been viewed as pedestrian.

 

[Mage]

All I know is, my favorite incarnations of Star Trek are all after Gene passed, but without the foundations he made, we would have none of it.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

Gene was really only personally responsible for TOS, TMP, and the first couple years of TNG. TOS is my favorite but the TOS movies and later TNG (plus scattered excellent Ds9 episodes and the solid streaming shows today) probably create a higher volume of "quality content".