Comments on: More From Roddenberry: On Trek’s Future After Him & Recasting

By: J. E. Carrales

J. E. Carrales — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:12:55 +0000

26. jon1701 – March 6, 2008
25#

You mean this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDCAJhLqiXs

Oh, my GOD! I could imagine a Star Trek Phase II a la disco. That would have ruined history. In the late 1960s “campy” was acceptable because there was a certain amount of the 1950s TV sceen holding over. It was more of a tranistion between what Television was in the Golden Age to what it was to be in the 1980s. Thus, in 1968 someone like Herb Alpert could host the Hollywood Palace, a variety show, in the same television formula as Star Trek and there was a field in which serious Sci-Fi (Twilight Zone like anthologies, Star Trek and a few other notables) could exist with fantasy one like Lost in Space.

Star Trek is the perfect balance, in terms of genre, between Rocky Jones Space Ranger and the more serious Sci Fi Shows that would arrive in the 1990s.

I think that is fine with me. Star Trek TOS existed at just the right time. Had it been on the air in 1959-1961 it would not have hit, it it had come about in 1976, it would not have flown. The evidence for that is that programs from those times are somewhat fogotten or “dated” while Star Trek, while still dated, has a timeless quality. It was at the right place, at the right time in the right generation…it endures.

By: Chris M

Chris M — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:08:04 +0000

Some more very interesting comments from te creator of Star Trek!

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:42:03 +0000

#97 7 of 5 you’re right having the film in hand would obviously answer those questions. I think the film will be a success, tangible proof? honestly none, so we have to look at JJ Abrams record as producer and director, he’s has been successful, Alias and Lost both hit show,Mission Impossible 3 very good film, Cloverfield also quite good. I think based on that issue of his success there is a very good likely hood that we are going to get a good solid trek movie. Abrams and the studio have alot riding on the film so from a common sense standpoint they are going to do everything in their power to ensure that the film will be the best it can be, because failure, which is a possibility ,would be very costly to both director and studio. As to whether Gene Roddenberry would like the film, I agree we have no way of knowing what he would think even with the finished film. There is o way of knowing at all on this last point.

By: 7 of 5

7 of 5 — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:50:53 +0000

Regarding the current poll: how can anyone possibly answer with anything but ‘I don’t know’??

More to the point, we know very little of nothing about the film; we have the word of others that Trek is in good hands; we have snippets and incomplete images; we have directors and actors saying ‘WOW’. What we lack is the cold hard reality of the master print. We simply will not have any inkling of whether GR would approve or not until we actually see the finished product, and then we can only extrapolate based upon what we know of the Great Bird.

Any other answer is pretentious.

Not the most well-thought-out poll I’ve seen. I challenge you for better.

By: m0r1arty

m0r1arty — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:49:21 +0000

I’m sure if he’d seen Voyager he’d have eaten the words “”Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!”"

-m0r

By: LostOnNCC1701

LostOnNCC1701 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:28:40 +0000

Every great visionary has allowed their product to change.

The US Constitution was written so that it could be easily modified and interpreted as the times changed, hence amendments and how a supreme court decision can change over time. (it should be noted however that many of the constitution signers thought it was a crappy document, and that is why it was made so that it could be possible to change it)

In Pop-culture, there are plenty of “renovations” that have made characters more relevant to current times. The original versions of Superman (who could only jump really far and lift heavy things) and Batman (who was just a masked avenger who routinely used guns) are not considered the definitive versions of the characters.

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:54:47 +0000

Gene Roddenberry was a great producer, i don’t think even he could have imagined what Star trek would ultimately morph into. The whole visionary mantle began in the early 70’s when he began the college lecture circuit and the Star Trek conventions began. Is he a visionary? well you could make that argument given the impact of Star trek not only on only popular culture but on the sciences as well. A lot of young kids became engineers and scientists to try and make the gadgets of trek into reality. Is the world a better place because of him? In some ways yes. I have difficulty buying into the whole utopian future notion that he preaches, I don’t think we will ever achieve the kind of enlighten development of humanity that he portrays in trek, because we by nature are very selfish and self absorbed people, we don’t seem to much concerned with thoughts of a bright and shiny future. With most of us its day to day living and let tomorrow take care of itself. Unfortunately this outlook may contribute to our downfall as a species. Still there is nothing wrong with visionaries and their dreams, it give us something to hope for.

By: MARIAN C.

MARIAN C. — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:11:35 +0000

-Great man…

By: CanuckLou

CanuckLou — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:11:06 +0000

@70 Kevin, there is no difference. The difference exists in your mind only if you let it. ;)

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:30:11 +0000

#89 Closettreker as ive stated before this movie will please most but all people. Hardcore trekies are not going to accept this as the real deal. But there is a way for them to enjoy the movie anyway. I would imagine that many hardcore trekies read the trek books and comics and enjoy the various fan incarnations of trek. They don’t view them as cannon but rather as side stories. I say to them why not view the Abrams movie as a side story, or an alternate universe Star Trek. A Trek from a different universe, that might help or look at it as a really goo science fiction movie with the external trappings of Trek Its how you choose to look at things. It just a thought that’s all.