TOS, the best Trek, was made with Roddenberry at the helm. All the other Trek has been, in one way or another, trying to recapture that. The TOS films nearly got there. TNG almost got there. SNW appears to be getting there.
Your Opinion: Is "Star Trek" Better or Worse Without Gene Roddenberry?
- Thread starter Moviefan2k4
- Start date
One could make the argument that TOS really came into its own once the other Gene - Gene Coon - got involved. Trek succeeded in spite of Roddenberry. Not because of him.
Gene was a great ideas man during the early years but some of the things we associate most with and love about the franchise - the Klingons, the United Federation of Planets, the Horta, Zefram Cochrane, etc. - came from the talented mind of Gene Coon and turned Roddenberry's fantastic universe into something even more textured and meaningful with greater staying power in the public consciousness. The Great Bird set the table and invited the guests but Coon and others provided a lot of the best dishes.
Yeah. I would argue, more broadly, that it was the whole creative team, Coon included. Also, Fontana's work cannot be overlooked, the same can be said of Black's, and the same applies to the contributions of authors such as Ellison and Sturgeon. We likely wouldn't have Star Trek without Peeples.
But the poll question literally is not whether Roddenberry was responsible for what Star Trek was or is, only whether it's better when he was there vs when he wasn't. Of course, the OP is at odds with the poll question, but that's a different matter; the perfect people approach did not even exist during TOS, during the series that Roddenberry was arguably most involved in.
It really undercuts the ultimate threat that the Cardassians became on DS9, too.
Back on the original topic, this prompted me to re-watch "Chaos on the Bridge" the other night and it really reiterated to me a point that many of you have made - "Star Trek" (particularly Berman-era "Star Trek") succeeded despite Gene rather than because of him. Berman, Piller, and the rest tried to be faithful to "the Vision" as best they could but could also be persuaded to sidestep it when they needed to.
In Gene's defense, it was his baby. He always just had a hard time letting go and allowing it to flourish with the influence of others. He ran into that mental block with TOS once others came on board, the movies after TMP, and TNG once Berman starting making the big decisions and each time with the studios shutting Gene out of the process.
It's a painful process for anyone who knows what it's like to be a parent. I hope I am wise enough that, when the time comes for my daughter to go out on her own, I can be confident that her mom and I taught her well and she's ready for what will come at her and that there may be others out there who can take her to her next chosen level better than we ever could, and recognize and shun the charlatans who would use & exploit her. "Make good decisions" may be a cliché, but it's also very true (as most clichés are, or they likely wouldn't be cliché).
Gene couldn't do that.
However, one must ask, was it really about pride of ownership, or was it his fear of having to share his profits from royalties with others? Alexander Courage, Franz Joseph and DC Fontana might want to have a word about that...
It's a painful process for anyone who knows what it's like to be a parent. I hope I am wise enough that, when the time comes for my daughter to go out on her own, I can be confident that her mom and I taught her well and she's ready for what will come at her and that there may be others out there who can take her to her next chosen level better than we ever could, and recognize and shun the charlatans who would use & exploit her. "Make good decisions" may be a cliché, but it's also very true (as most clichés are, or they likely wouldn't be cliché).
Gene couldn't do that.
However, one must ask, was it really about pride of ownership, or was it his fear of having to share his profits from royalties with others? Alexander Courage, Franz Joseph and DC Fontana might want to have a word about that...
Last edited:
O’Brien being on the Enterprise makes sense fine. He was simply transferred. I don’t understand the problem there.
Nor that the Cardassians not being, say, on level with the Klingons as a threat to the entire Federation a problem. Billions of lives could still have been at stake in these vast civilizations. Plus, they could have armed further to be, during TNG, a greater threat than they were during the war before it. And of course all bets are off once they entered the Dominion.
Regarding Gene, I think both Gene Coon and Michael Piller were a huge parts of Star Trek’s success, but none of that happens without Gene Roddenberry’s vision and set up. And looking at where Trek went in the later Berman era and in many areas onwards suggests to me that Trek could have been better with more of his input. Many of the most transgressive and aspirational parts of Star Trek come from him.
Nor that the Cardassians not being, say, on level with the Klingons as a threat to the entire Federation a problem. Billions of lives could still have been at stake in these vast civilizations. Plus, they could have armed further to be, during TNG, a greater threat than they were during the war before it. And of course all bets are off once they entered the Dominion.
Regarding Gene, I think both Gene Coon and Michael Piller were a huge parts of Star Trek’s success, but none of that happens without Gene Roddenberry’s vision and set up. And looking at where Trek went in the later Berman era and in many areas onwards suggests to me that Trek could have been better with more of his input. Many of the most transgressive and aspirational parts of Star Trek come from him.
Last edited:
Agreed entirely. Indeed as I know many of you who have watched "Chaos" know that was one of the great tragedies of the man. He created this thing we all love and struggled to keep reins when he was able to do it again.
One thing that I forgot to mention was how Maurice Hurley talked about how frustrated he would become when a good story would come along and Gene himself would violate his own rules of what could and could not be Star Trek. But, as unfair as it sounds, when you're Gene those are the decisions that you get to make because it's your baby.
^ that goes back to vision. Berman was criticized for sticking too tightly to certain Roddenberry-isms but Roddenberry would not have himself if it made for a better story. Same the other way. Certain Berman-isms or Kurtzman-isms or Abrams-isms or what have you would not have flown.
exactly. I agree with these comments: it's a big glaring issue with ST
Roddenberry had a shitload of problems.
But Trek has never been as imaginative as under him. And also never as unique.
Now that he's gone gone, Trek has morphed into a pretty generic space show - just one with the 2nd biggest sci-fi IP backing up it's budget & audience.
But to be quite honest, I wish the next person at the helm is going to take a deep look at the TOS (& TNG) series bible, and actually takes the "do's" and "don'ts" and takes them as serious again as Roddenberry meant them - even if that makes actually the one or other story worse for it, because it takes out it's most dramatic elements.
Star trek is a bit like Superman.
You have to be super disciplined, and it's still very difficult to write for, and the result might not be for everyone. Everybody just wants to do Batman. He's cool. Everybody likes him. But then it's, well, just not Superman anymore.
But Trek has never been as imaginative as under him. And also never as unique.
Now that he's gone gone, Trek has morphed into a pretty generic space show - just one with the 2nd biggest sci-fi IP backing up it's budget & audience.
But to be quite honest, I wish the next person at the helm is going to take a deep look at the TOS (& TNG) series bible, and actually takes the "do's" and "don'ts" and takes them as serious again as Roddenberry meant them - even if that makes actually the one or other story worse for it, because it takes out it's most dramatic elements.
Star trek is a bit like Superman.
You have to be super disciplined, and it's still very difficult to write for, and the result might not be for everyone. Everybody just wants to do Batman. He's cool. Everybody likes him. But then it's, well, just not Superman anymore.
Last edited:
IMO, SNW comes closest to that. The look, feel, even orchestral choices, seem to be taking their cues from how TOS was originally conceived and built. Probably a big reason why it's doing so well.
I am not sure it can be fairly evaluated. The industry is so different now and the suits were of a different I'll back then. Gene had all sorts of obstacles and hoops to jump through with a new series. Today everything from production values, the show's checkbook, and the stories that can be written... well, it's a different world.
Gene created a fantastic platform, a sandbox to play in and every year it gets a little bigger and better.
Gene created a fantastic platform, a sandbox to play in and every year it gets a little bigger and better.
^^ These bear repeating.
I think it was a mixture of both. As much as he liked to tout his vision of an "evolved" humanity, Roddenberry at the end of the day was a rather small man, IMO.
Yes, I agree. SNW is hitting the TOS notes in the way Star Trek hasn't in a long, long time.
Worse. Discovery is a prime example of what I don't want in a Trek show. I think the whole philosophy that Roddenberry challenged writers to think a bit more outside the box rather than falling into boring as fuck drama stereotypes about being human that we've seen, heard and read dozens of time. To a certain extent, the humans of Trek could feel quite alien.
I really love DS9, but I often think the ideas it put forward or some of the stuff it did were some of the worst for the show in the long term. It certainly gives people the chance to say "What about DS9?!" whenever you point out something horrible from the newer shows.
I really love DS9, but I often think the ideas it put forward or some of the stuff it did were some of the worst for the show in the long term. It certainly gives people the chance to say "What about DS9?!" whenever you point out something horrible from the newer shows.
DSC casts a pale shadow compared to DS9. There are bits of it I've liked over the years, but it's seriously not even in the same weight class.
No Trek should be compared against another.
TOS dealt with the same dark themes as DS9. DSC deals with the same dark themes as TOS. It's not a competition.
TOS dealt with the same dark themes as DS9. DSC deals with the same dark themes as TOS. It's not a competition.
Exactly. How long after the Korean war was the final peace settlement signed ?
Not yet.
Similar threads
