I was kinda bored at work the other day so I was on wikipedia reading up on all the series and movies in the Star Trek universe. And you know what? It appears that while Gene Rodenberry had a great idea for Star Trek initially his influence may not be what made it great. I recognize what he did with the Original Series is great but he may not have made the transition too well into more modern Trek times. I always heard how Paramount had issues with him and how his ideas and input was not always the best. And some of the rules he had for writers, like the “no interpersonal conflict among the characters” handicapped the creative process. They tried to keep some of that in Next Generation with Roddenberry as Producer on the show and to me made it a kinda shallow show that, the earlier season, just don’t hold up. And in my opinion the episodic nature of the show prevented the plot and character growth. My favorite Trek is Deep Space 9, which Roddenberry is reported to have hated and went against everything his “Utopian Vision” of the future. It had a lot of character growth, interpersonal conflict, and long serialized story arcs that I LOVED! Now sure, since DS9 Trek may have begun slipping. I wasn’t enjoying Trek until the 3rd season of Enterprise when they brought people on who had the right idea for a prequel (we won;t mention the series final slap in the face to the cast tho). So seriously, is the hype behind The Great Bird of the Galaxy Gene Roddenberry overblown? I am interested in hearing your opinions…
I now await your replies in my flame proof bunker!
February 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
The hype around Gene is really equal to the hype around Star Trek in general. Some is deserved, some is overblown. I agree that (”The Cage” not withstanding) Gene wasn’t a great writer as such. But his importance lies with him as a man of ideals. When he created Star Trek originally, he wanted a science fiction show that was intelligent, scientifically accurate, and dramatic. For the most part, he succeeded - even if that success was due in large measure to people like Gene Coon and DC Fontana. Were they better writers than Roddenberry? Yes. But they didn’t have his vision.
Perhaps Paramount had issues with him; this is simply the nature of the business. The fact is, even as they pushed him out as the movies were in production, they never cut ties completely.
Yes, making characters in TNG all super friendly perhaps watered down dramatic possibilities. But why cast aspersions on Gene’s insistence that people will become better behaved? (There’s that man of ideals thing again). I would argue that this constraint ultimately led to better scripts and better writers. When Michael Pillar came on board, he figured out how to make that work to the benefit of the show. Those three years that he was involved were the strongest three years of any Trek incarnation.
As to DS9, it’s my initial response to brush it aside as a poor replication of Babylon 5. (But then again, I am biased.) I agree with Gene - it might have been a good show, but it wasn’t Star Trek.
As for Enterprise, it was clear that the creative team, minus Gene’s vision, produced the most tired, trite storylines ever. The Xindi arc in Year Three was completely predictable, start to finish. And Year 4, which was supposedly trying to get the show back to Star Trek roots, simply came across as pandering to the fanboys.
So, in closing, remember Gene as a man of ideals that launched a universe that has influenced and uplifted millions. And that exceeds any undeserved hype.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Oh you HAD to bring up Babylon 5 didn’t ya! Don’t get me wrong, I think B5 is the greatest piece of sci-fi ever to be put on TV. But I’m talking Trek here. It’s like if I was talking about the best fast food burger and you bring in steak. Steak wins! B5 will always win but that show is in a different class. And I have no doubts that DS9 was copied from B5 and maybe that is why it’s my favorite Trek.
As for Enterprise, I agree with you up until your opinion of season 4. You may see it as pandering, but it could have been the show getting writers that got the show and what it could have been. Those fanboys, the Trek Geeks, know the material, know the history, and wanted to see it in the prequel show. No borg, no Ferengi, no cheap tricks to get ratings. They wanted to see the evolution of the Federation, the Earth Romulan War, and all the talked about history that the show just ignored the first 3 years. And as for wanting to see the rise of the Federation I always felt if they went this route they would have kinda copied B5 again with the rise of the Intersteller Alliance.
So where does Trek go from here? Who knows. It all depends on how the next movie will do. I hope it does well. But to be honest, I would so much rather JMS surprise us all and do a B5: The Telepath War Motion Picture!
Ah, a geek can dream…
~Chris
May 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Hey guys,
Yes, Roddenberry wasn’t all that. YOu should read what Shatner has to say about the man in his autobiography that came out last year. He basically makes Roddenberry out to be an ego-centric (isn’t that usually what’s said about Shatner?) money-mad exploiter of the Star Trek franchise. He’s right about the merchandising and it’s funny how Shatner goes on to list page after page of Trek memorabilia to prove his point.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Greetings from Texas. I am new to this podcast and it is my first post. I’m really impressed, great job. Please excuse the long post. I have searched a long time for fellow Christians who are SFF fans/geeks, and I tend to prattle. Also, please pardon any grammar or spelling problems. I am having a hard time seeing black text on a gray background. Happens when you are 50+.
I happened to catch a rerun of the 25th anniversary of Star Trek on the Biography channel. It was done before Roddenberry’s health started to fail, Shatner looked really trim, and Nimoy had embarrassingly huge glasses. It was oddly comforting to see them that much younger (or alive in GR’s case.)
I was seven when I saw my first episode of ST:TOS, “The Doomsday Machine.” Holy cow. Yes, I was one of those nutty college students in the 70’s who refused to let ST die. I liked TNG because my sons were old enough to enjoy it with me. I hated DS9; if it wasn’t centered on a ship, it wasn’t Star Trek. Voyager I could not get where I live, and I guess I liked ST:Enterprise more than most folks. Probably because of Scott Bakula and “Porthos.” I really loved B5 in the can’t-wait-until-next-week way. But the bloom came off the rose a bit when I saw how much JMS, ahem, “borrowed” from Tolkien. If you’re going to borrow, borrow from the best.
You may be wondering if I have a point, and I do: music. Anyone who has seen “The Doomsday Machine” cannot ignore Sol Kaplan’s score, hate it or love it. Jerry Goldsmith’s second theme, for the first movie and TNG, unforgettable. But somewhere around the midway point of TNG, somebody forgot the importance of the score. All the way through ST:Enterprise, it was elevator music most of the time. But (spoiler) the party is on again with the new movie. I bought the soundtrack from iTunes as soon as I could. I checked IMDB quickly and saw that Michael Giacchino has done a ton of work for JJ Abrams. Especially in the end credits, he has seamlessly woven ST:TOS’ opening theme with his own compositions, and it’s a joy to listen to. Oh, yeah, the rest of the movie’s good, too. My wife is being a good sport and is going with me to Austin on Saturday to see it at an IMAX theater. What a lucky guy I am. God bless, everyone.
Jim
May 18th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Have you seen the series Firefly or Serenity! They are the anti-Trek Sci Fi. Awesome show and movie!
May 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
That’s a good question. I have not. In this part of Texas we had very little of UPN/WB and zero CW on DirecTV. I see where Sci-Fi runs shows from time to time but haven’t caught it yet. I’ll add the series and movie to my Netflix queue. Thanks for the advice.