Starfleet Jedi

Here's yet another Roddenberry quote on stuff being Star Trek even when he's not around to say whether or not it's Star Trek:

"I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, "Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!" And that would please me!"

Mere hours ago I saw the old 60's line "It's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek" trotted out by Trek foes to claim that post-'91 Trek isn't canon, so . . . sadly . . . it's still a relevant issue. Well, sorta . . . after all, it's so long-settled.

"I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, "Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!" And that would please me!"

Yes but that day has yet to come, as sad as it sounds.

The pinnacle of Star Trek was the Undiscovered Country, most else things carrying the label of 'Trek' after that started to decline somewhat. So it very much still isn't Star Trek.

Narsil wrote:

"I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, "Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!" And that would please me!"

Yes but that day has yet to come, as sad as it sounds.

The pinnacle of Star Trek was the Undiscovered Country, most else things carrying the label of 'Trek' after that started to decline somewhat. So it very much still isn't Star Trek.

So despite Roddenberry's explicit blessing for "a Star Trek" after his death (for he was already old and such in '89), your opinion as to whether it was good or not is the sole criteria of canonicity?

Fascinating.

I'm not sure narsil really meant that, in the canon sense.

Much in the Roddenberry sense, but only based on one single quote, which is quite selective mind you.

Roddenberry didn't really own Trek, did he? And in his final days, he clearly considered it fine if Trek could go on its own.

I really don't see how this makes non-Roddenberry Trek untrue Trek.

2046 wrote:So despite Roddenberry's explicit blessing for "a Star Trek" after his death (for he was already old and such in '89), your opinion as to whether it was good or not is the sole criteria of canonicity?

It seems you're someone who obviously can't take a joke as what it is. But in my opinion, everything that came after Star Trek VI just shat on the franchise, and it just got worse with B&B's constant masturbation to Seven of Nine's tits - lovely tits, granted, but not conductive to a good bit of storytelling unless one of her 'implants' failed.

Manny Coto seemed to almost be improving upon the original concepts of Star Trek in Season 4 of Enterprise, but that got cancelled soon enough.

Roddenberry wasn't the greatest help to Trek anyways. Most of the worst elements of early TNG were his ideas and many of them stuck around for the long haul.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Roddenberry wasn't the greatest help to Trek anyways. Most of the worst elements of early TNG were his ideas and many of them stuck around for the long haul.

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that some of the B&B decisions were a lot more damning. Deep Space 9 had many saving graces over Berman and Braga's influence upon Voyager and Enterprise. As it stands, Trek is a failed franchise that showed a lot of promise, but in the grand scheme of things - there is a lot better science fiction out there.

Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Star Wars... and that's just onscreen. Offscreen we've still got Iain M. Banks' the Culture, Stephen Baxter's Xeelee Sequence, Terry Pratchett's Discworld* and numerous other bits of work being produced.

*= Discworld might not count as science fiction, but it's high-quality enough to be included I reckon.

Narsil wrote:
I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that some of the B&B decisions were a lot more damning. Deep Space 9 had many saving graces over Berman and Braga's influence upon Voyager and Enterprise. As it stands, Trek is a failed franchise that showed a lot of promise, but in the grand scheme of things - there is a lot better science fiction out there.

Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Star Wars... and that's just onscreen. Offscreen we've still got Iain M. Banks' the Culture, Stephen Baxter's Xeelee Sequence, Terry Pratchett's Discworld* and numerous other bits of work being produced.

*= Discworld might not count as science fiction, but it's high-quality enough to be included I reckon.

I find myself in complete agreement. My comment wasn't really directed at you anyways, more of a general comment on Roddenberry's destructive influence on the franchise when he did have control. All in all, Trek's been badly managed more often than not.

Narsil wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:Roddenberry wasn't the greatest help to Trek anyways. Most of the worst elements of early TNG were his ideas and many of them stuck around for the long haul.

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that some of the B&B decisions were a lot more damning. Deep Space 9 had many saving graces over Berman and Braga's influence upon Voyager and Enterprise. As it stands, Trek is a failed franchise that showed a lot of promise, but in the grand scheme of things - there is a lot better science fiction out there.

Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Star Wars... and that's just onscreen. Offscreen we've still got Iain M. Banks' the Culture, Stephen Baxter's Xeelee Sequence, Terry Pratchett's Discworld* and numerous other bits of work being produced.

*= Discworld might not count as science fiction, but it's high-quality enough to be included I reckon.

Stargate?

SG-1 was good in the five first seasons, still nice in the sixth, starting to feel very tired in the seventh, and went downhill pretty fast after that.

Atlantis started rather very well by season 1, but the next two seasons were real shitters, with some of the worst episodes to date.
All that because they had no real plan for SGA in fact, had no clear idea where they were going, and admitted being quite lucky for season 1. Of course, the fact that the fathers of the spin-off moved out and let those Maul and Mullie douchebags most in charge really made the show go down.

Now, they're in full charge of SGA, so we can expect a 20% increase in quality, which will bring the spin-off above average.

I find myself in complete agreement. My comment wasn't really directed at you anyways, more of a general comment on Roddenberry's destructive influence on the franchise when he did have control. All in all, Trek's been badly managed more often than not.

Unfortunate, but true. Trek has potential, or rather had potential, but it squandered it on their reimagined Star Trek: Lost in Space and the sucky spin-off known as Star Trek: Enterprise. Either way, Trek had a lot of wasted potential and a lot of moments where it could have made something of itself. But then they made clones of the Cybermen and called them the Borg; after that, everything went downhill.

And as for Stargate, I haven't actually seen that much of it in the later seasons so I can't comment specifically.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Roddenberry wasn't the greatest help to Trek anyways. Most of the worst elements of early TNG were his ideas and many of them stuck around for the long haul.

Even in the 1960's during TOS' first run, Roddenberry was prone to producing stinkers: "The Omega Glory", for instance, is his story.

All it goes to prove is that even the creators of a particlular franchise, be it Roddenberry or Lucas, are still human beings who can still frak it up badly. They may be very good idea producing men, but their ideas are best turned over to others to further refine and develop.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:

Even in the 1960's during TOS' first run, Roddenberry was prone to producing stinkers: "The Omega Glory", for instance, is his story.

Oh frak, I remember that one. Certainly not one of the better episodes.

All it goes to prove is that even the creators of a particlular franchise, be it Roddenberry or Lucas, are still human beings who can still frak it up badly. They may be very good idea producing men, but their ideas are best turned over to others to further refine and develop.
-Mike

It certainly helps to have a tempering influence on your work. Be it editors or simply just someone else to bounce ideas off of.

Yes, just look at what happened to George Lucas after the success of ANH and TESB, as well as the growth of Lucasfilm and it various subsidary companies: Lucas stopped listening to other people; became more of a control-freak tyrant, and gave us the mediocre PT, including Jar-Jar Binks.
-Mike

For a Trek-related quality comparison, compare TWOK or TUC to FC or INS - such a dramatic difference in storytelling quality that it isn't even funny. And I liked First Contact and Insurrection, but they're no real competition for The Wrath of Khan or the Undiscovered Country.