I want to tell you how much class both of these people have, and how much I appreciate Solow’s “getting it,” as I have, after many reservations about the Enterprise and the re-make of Star Trek.

In short, nothing was “overturned” in the “Classic TOS” we all know and love. The interview from Trek Movie I think we’re all waiting on is the one from D.C. Fonatana, who was indeed channeled FAR MORE than my ideas were, as she is perhaps just as responsible for Star Trek’s look in this movie as anyone who got credit for writing it. If you haven’t picked up “Vulcan’s Glory” written by Fontana yet, then find it on Amazon if you can. This is the same Spock we see as the “young Spock” in this film. More so, at WalMart I finally bought the DVD set “TAS” on clearance for $14.00 and of course the first thing I went to was “Yesteryear,” which has not only one inspirations in this film, but two. First is the young Spock picked on by other Vulcans, and second is the older Spock meeting the younger Spock.

Where the hell is Science Friday? I wanted to tell people about my close-up view next week of Endeavor’s launch into space!

Cool for you, – getting to meet him. I remember very well Serling doing those also. It did lend a presence and weight to nothing, never get to the root of it, subjects. Nimoy was at his height of delivery then…before new teeth.

You’re right,…they should put those out…but then we’re still waiting on “Batman” and “It Takes a Thief” too.

178

As for offering constructive criticism I’ve learned no one really wants to hear that.

Executive Producer
AKA: Executive in Charge of Production
A producer who is not involved in any technical aspects of the filmmaking process, but who is still responsible for the overall production. Typically an executive producer handles business and legal issues. See also associate producer, co-producer, line producer.

Here is another from wikipedia:

The title of executive producer (EP), or executive in charge of production, typically describes a film producer, television producer, radio producer, record producer, or similar stakeholder who doesn’t participate in the technical operations of the production process, but who is still responsible for the success of a project.

Both articles actually indicate that the terms ‘executive producer’ and ‘executive in charge of production’ are indeed synonymous after all.

But not on this one.”

Not that I was really expecting you to demonstrate any real character, but I find it curious that, given your own demand for an apology under false pretenses, you didn’t offer one to me…lol.

In over two years of reading and posting on this site, I may have indeed “used the word”—-but I’m quite sure I haven’t directly applied it to a fellow TM poster during what is supposed to be a civil discussion.

#174—”The two terms are not synonymous or equivalent.”

Nor do they have to be. I am not suggesting that all producers have the same responsibility. Both titles (”executive producer” and “executive in charge of production”) fall under the category of “producer”—as do the terms “supervising producer”, “co-producer”, etc.There are many different kinds of “producers”, but they are all “producers” nonetheless.

All of this was simply in response to your assertion that it was incorrect to describe Mr. Solow as a TOS producer.

Even at Memory Alpha, Solow is described (correctly) as a producer on Star Trek.

Why this is important to you—I have no idea—but your argument is weak and without support in any case.

“Yeah,…I miss Nimoy’s voice work in the 70’s doing the authoritative thing on “in search of the bigfoot” and those kinds of things.”

I loved “In Search Of” in its original run, when I was a kid. And one of my fondest memories is of meeting Nimoy round about 1976 when he was doing the show. It was, of course, at times just fluff—but just by his voice and presence, he lent it gravitas… just as Rod Serling had contributed something unique to “The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau” series, in the early 70s, with HIS narrations.

Someone really MUST get “In Search Of” released on DVD. I can’t understand why the Landesburg people don’t do this (unless they no longer own it.. but then who does?) We know damn well the thing would sell. I can’t understand what’s held this up. It’s a true shame.

“I’ve always been a fan of Shatner’s delivery too. He used to words as weapons. Knew the method. Different training. Different times. Ah the days.”

Sadly, that generation is dying out—the generation that knew the old Hollywood, or at least caught the tail end of it.

Agree with you almost completely in your assessment. With my comments about criticisms, I like to read these because I’m curious how all the people who heap boundless praise feel about these moments. They obviously feel these things all work fine.

I had the chance to ask Bob Orci about this a little bit, and his answer was “obviously I disagree”. I was hoping for a little more, because I respect what he’s accomplished.

My only disagreement is I think the movie format CAN work fine, though I would also like to see Trek developed akin to “Lost” with long arcs and character development. Hopefully it won’t devolve into explosions, sexual innuendo, quick cuts, and lens flares.

Doug L.

Are you a child or just “childish” by nature?

Your little question is pointless. Solow was just as much a “TV generalist” as Roddenberry, Justman, or any of them were. So what’s your point? Solow wasn’t responsible for any other sci-fi TV shows… and…. so what? What, pray tell, does that prove in your eyes? Roddenberry wasn’t either. He in fact failed with every subsequent venture AFTER Star Trek.

As to “the terms not being synonymous or equivalent,” you’re quite simply wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I answered this in my lengthy reply to you earlier, and you conveniently skipped that and failed to address it.

As for why Solow didn’t “publish his book” before Oct. 1991, why don’t you contact him and ask him yourself? But let’s be clear on this–it was NOT solely HIS book. It was co-written with Robert Justman. BOTH men were close to Roddenberry. YOU feel it was a “stab in the back” (what is it with you and Roddenberry anyway? Are you one of these ridiculous Trekkies who honestly feels Roddenberry was some kind of unimpeachable godlike figure? He was, in fact, a very failable human being with good and bad sides, like any of us, and some of his bad traits affected professional demeanor) ….well I didn’t get that sense from reading the book. Rather, I got the sense that here were two men who were close to Roddenberry, but felt it was time to tell the whole story. YOU are clearly implying that they waited until after he was dead so he couldn’t respond to their statements—but of course the alternative answer is that they waited until after his death, perhaps, because they didn’t wish to hurt their friend’s feelings.

I have gotten the sense of Roddenberry over the years—not just from this book—that he was one of these odd, dualistic guys—outwardly confident and unflappable, but inwardly insecure. That comes out more and more over the years, and clearly one of his strategies, as a personality, for coping, was to build up his own image, occasionally at the expense of others.

I found the Solow/Justman book to be a fairly gentle straightening of the facts from two men who were extremely professional and had WIDELY varying, successful careers in the industry. Their opinions and stories have been echoed and in some cases even verified by many other sources.

Roddenberry, by comparison, was ONE man whose career was built on ONE success—Star Trek. After that he had managed nothing successful in Hollywood despite repeated attempts.

You WANT to find sinister motives in Solow’s and Justman’s book—and that only shows how deep your bias FOR Roddenberry runs. Well, good for you, stick with that if that’s how you like it.

But enough with trying to tear down Solow’s relationship to the show. You forget that he wrote this book WITH Justman, who approved it and clearly agreed with everything Solow said. Justman we KNOW had VERY clear and deep roots with the show and certainly DID play a serious part in its development. And if Solow had exaggerated or lied about HIS role in the show’s creation, Justman wouldn’t have written the book with him. He would have wrote his own.

I disagree with you though on this. I think CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms are much more entertaining than the random “wow i saw it three times now, and it is the best movie ever” comments which i feel represent 75% of the posts in general.

I really love a good critique and try to find them. I don’t particularly care if someone loved or hated the movie, it’s all subjective. I like to read interesting tidbits about why they liked or disliked something. :D

I was really happy with Mr. Solow’s criticism because it seems to be the first time someone associated with Trek (that I’ve seen at least) had something critical to say… and I agree with him.

Doug L.

Geoffers, 3 posts refering back to # 63 with nothing constructive to say at all. Sorry man but not cool.

I agree completely with Aijaz. Not because I can’t embrace new Trek vs old, not because it’s not exactly the same as TOS, but for exactly the reasons he states fairly clearly.

re 70… Geoffers the characters are barely developed is more to the point.

re 74… Geoffers – Here’s hoping your next post is (ahem) intelligent.

I’m glad this movie is doing well and as I’ve stated repeatedly, actually love most of JJ Abrams work. Just feel as a movie (despite a successful relaunch) that as Aijaz stated… it’s really full-on popcorn. The dogs in “UP” are better developed than the cast in Trek.

Doug L.