As far, as a few of you stating that no one would know John De Lancie except for the work he has done on STAR TREK. That would be just you. When he first appeared on TNG in Far Point the first thing I said was “That’s Eugene from DOOL’s.” So… while in your neck of the woods, John isn’t a household word or staple… I’m certain he is somewhere. I know I recognize his adorable face in other things and usually end up loving the show or whatever it is; simply because he’s part of it.

After having met him and speaking to him I have to say he is without a doubt a very genuine person. A regular guy like the rest of us making a living in a career known as acting. More than that, an incredible and devoted actor who takes the time with his fans, regardless of the genre.

Awwww. Not _sad_ … it’s _comforting,_ like an old pair of slippers or Mom’s apple pie. Something familiar and reliable :)

Thanks for fulling my prophesy; that saying something negative about Roddenberry would get me labeled “hater,” (okay, “basher”), but whatever. It’s sad to know that subset of Trek fandom is so predictable.

As for your questions, I’ll be glad to answer them.

1. Because at the time of production in 1967, no one *cared* enough to say “No” to GR. As much as we might hate to admit it, we have to be reminded that Trek was a modestly popular TV show, but no smash hit.

2. It doesn’t matter how many I have. The fact remains that there were many who felt GR’s writing was not always up to par. I’ve read more than a few very frank criticisms of GR’s writing, particularly pertaining to some of his Trek movie contributions as having been “unusable,” and I’m not going to sit and try to recall each one just to suit your denial. You have to understand how GR was perceived in reality, *outside of your Trek bias*, without the Robe of Trek Deity. He was a great concept guy, an average-to-above-average writer, and apparently only a middling movie producer. As for the WGAw award, who cares? How many one-hit wonders have won Grammys, Oscars, etc. It isn’t about bashing GR, its about viewing him *honestly*. He built a great thing in Trek, and others helped perepetuate the reality.

3. The point wasn’t that they gave it to Bennett, *but that they took it AWAY from GR*, and GAVE it to someone who at least *had* a movie track record. Besides, the TV division of Paramount was responsible TWOK’s production even though it was a theatrical release, and Harve Bennett had a *great* TV track record at that time. They basically asked him, as I recall reading somewhere, “can you make a better movie, and make it for less than 45 million **** dollars?”

4. You have all this grand insight on Paramount’s illegalities, so I’ll let you deal with their legal department for accusing them of such. Had Paramount and GR not bungled ST:TMP so badly, and I will grant you it was as much if not more Paramount’s fault than GR’s, and produced a film only *half* as good as TWOK, it would have made probably *double* the box office and been heralded as one of the great TV-to-movie transitions ever. TMP succeeded as the result of over a dozen years of latent anticipation for a big-screen treatment of Trek. That the franchise was a beached whale, and someone found out a way to make it a $380M worldwide baby again, is nothing short of phenomenal.

I guess its pointless to say it, but the point is not merely to bash GR, but to understand that while he was the underlying driver for Trek, he was not and never could be the one who persisted into reality. That’s to the credit of the myriad writers, producers, and directors down the road who did.

1. If Gene was such a “hindrance,” why did no one have the courage to say so while he was still alive, save Harlan Ellison?

2. If he was such a bad writer, why the WGAw award? And how many do you have?

3. If Harve Bennett was necessary for Star Trek to be “commercially viable,” why oh why did Paramount spend $42 million on TMP, and put it in the hands of a man whose only previous theatrical film was a failure?

4. And how did he manage to produce a film which, despite Paramount’s illegal accounting practices, not only made a profit but was, adjusted for inflation, the most popular film of the series until this year?

But what “meltdown” of Marina Sirtis was post #51 referring to?

It’s good to see you admit that you respond to what you imagine people mean, instead of what they actually say.

“But they’re right only insofar as one assumes there’s only one way to do Star Trek.”

It’s interesting that you imagine that they mean “one way.”

“There’s absolutely no reason why ST can’t be a summer action movie.”

Indeed. It’s interesting that you imagine that others disagree.

#12 “The Sisko, Bajoran, Cardassian, Vic Fontaine, Dominion War, Blah Blah Blah ruined, killed Star Trek.”

Spot on!

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Why all the hate?? While I obviously liked them all, Vic Fontaine made Trek swing, baby! Vic was the coolest character on any of the shows. I love the story behind getting James Darren to play the role. He was approached by the producers, he said in an interview, and he was very excited about playing an alien. He told them that he wanted to wear any make up and latex they wanted as long as he didn’t have to sing. Then they told him of the Rat Packer, Vic Fontaine, that they wanted him to play and he immediately said, “I’m in!” Mr. Darren played with Frank Sinatra and knew him well so he saw this as a fun tribute. A few months ago, Mr. Darren was hosting a show on XM’s Sirriusly Sinatra channel and he told some stories about being on DS9 and how he really enjoyed it and being able to do the standards again. He had two great albums that followed his stint on DS9 on which he sang many Rat Pack hits. He’s a class act who helped develop a wonderfully fun and interesting character.