|
TrekWeb Sponsor
|
|
|
Audible lets you download and listen to a great book at a great price. Start with Star Trek: First Contact. >From the deepest, darkest reaches of space came the greatest threat the Federation had ever faced: the Borg. Only the determination of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew can prevent the Borg from striking at the heart of the Federation and Earth. Listen to a free sample now. |
|
Listen to FREE Streaming Audio Samples Now!
RealMedia
Windows Media |
Posted:
07:54:15 on October 24 2001
By: Steve Krutzler
Dept: Special Features
Ten years after the death of STAR TREK’s mythic founder Gene Roddenberry, the spirit of the entertainment phenomenon he began has launched into new territory and – at least for now – a recapturing of fan popularity with ENTERPRISE. The decade since his death has seen the end of the last STAR TREK series he created (TNG), three successful feature-films that continue the tradition, two spin-off series that ranged at times from groundbreaking to heartbreaking, the death of Original Series favorite DeForrest Kelley, a fifth series that promises to return to the roots of Gene’s original “vision,” and even the creation of the first special edition “Director’s Cut” of a STAR TREK film.
Gene Roddenberry has inspired a cult-following as large as any of his most famous actors and his work has engendered lively debate on humanism, religion, and science fiction. To observe the tenth anniversary since his death on October 24th, 1991, TrekWeb has attempted to compile materials that help reveal more of who Gene was, what his legacy has been, and what others who worked with him or work on STAR TREK today think on this occasion. First, I have selected some trivia about Gene’s life that many fans may be unaware of; these are taken from David Alexander’s Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry. I have also assembled some interesting quotes from Gene himself, given in a 1991 interview to The Humanist months before his death. TrekWeb’s columnist Bill Williams has written an historical retrospective about Gene's life; O. Deus has contributed a compelling essay on Gene's "legacy"; and Alexander Chase provides some final thoughts in his editorial. Finally, I have collected the thoughts of various individuals who have been involved with STAR TREK over the years, who shared their remarks with TrekWeb especially for this feature.
Interesting Trivia About Gene and STAR TREK
Early TV work
While serving full-time on the Los Angeles Police Department, he in 1954 sold his first script, “Defense Plant Gambling”, to the new series Mr. District Attorney. Before this he had sold story ideas to Dragnet. Acting as technical consultant for Mr. District Attorney, Gene kept his job as a policeman and even passed the rigorous sergeant’s exam in his first attempt. In 1956 he left the force to pursue writing full-time and eventually landed a contract with Screen Gems to develop series. In 1963 he even created and produced the series The Lieutenant for Arena Productions at MGM.
Inspiration for Khan and Data’s creator
While serving as a pilot in World War II, Gene had a friend named Kim Noonien Singh with whom he lost contact after the war. Gene immortalized his friend in the name of the famous villain Khan Noonien Singh in the TOS episode “Space Seed” and again later in life in the name of Data’s “creator”, Dr. Noonien Soong. Gene hoped that Kim might see his name and make contact with him.
MGM missed the boat
According to Alexander’s biography, when MGM passed on Gene’s pitch of STAR TREK while he was under contract there, one studio executive lamented in a note that “seeing Gene leave, taking Star Trek with him, was like watching his mother-in-law driving off a cliff in his new Cadillac convertible.”
Spock was originally a Martian!
Complete with red skin, Mr. Spock as originally conceived was from the planet Mars; but Gene’s friend, Sam Peeples – who had been brought in to write the script for the second pilot NBC had ordered, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” – convinced Gene that Spock should be more human in order to reflect on the human condition more easily. Accordingly, plans to have the character ingest energy through his stomach were scrapped. His home planet was changed because of the thought that real explorers might actually land on Mars during the show’s run—clearly Gene was (and still is) far ahead of his time.
Evolution of a legend
One of Gene’s earliest drafts of the now-famous TOS monologue went: "This is the story of the United Space Ship Enterprise. Assigned a five-year patrol of our galaxy, the giant starship visits Earth colonies, regulates commerce, and explores strange new worlds and civilizations. These are its voyages.....and its adventures." Several other writers, including Robert Justman and John D. F. Black contributed additional phrases such as “five-year patrol,” “mission to… enforce intergalactic law,” and “infinite frontier of space” until Gene settled on what became William Shatner’s opening sequence voiceover on August 10th, 1966.
Other tidbits
Data’s predecessor in TNG was originally called “Questor,” Gene had a script for a Tarzan film, and the character Q was named after a friend named Janet Quarton.
For much more, author David Alexander has compiled excerpts from his book at the Philosophy Sphere web site here.
The Death of Gene Roddenberry – Ten Years Later
An Historical Retrospective Written for TrekWeb by Bill Williams
October 24, 1991. I still remember that evening very clearly. That was when I’d first heard on WGN Television from Chicago that Gene Roddenberry, the creator of “Star Trek” and “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, had died at the age of 70. To imagine “Star Trek” without its creator at the helm at the time seemed impossible to accept at that moment. A day or two later Patrick Stewart was interviewed on Roddenberry’s passing, and his words still echo to this day: “It’s like a feeling of losing a parent. Who will take care of us now, now that our father is gone?”
To this day the question remains to be answered by historians, film and television producers, critics, and philosophers alike: Who was this man, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry? What molded his beliefs in his life? What gave him that perspective that permeated the original “Star Trek” and “Next Generation” series and feature films? Genius or madman? Humanitarian or hedonist?
As a boy born in El Paso, Texas and growing up in California, Texas in the 1920’s, Gene’s family was not blessed with material wealth and success, but that did not stop him from dreaming about life beyond what he knew. To that end Gene channeled his energies into reading as much science fiction as he could: “Amazing Stories”, “Captain Future”, “Astounding Stories”, “Planet Stories”, and the like of the day. Reaching out, looking beyond to tomorrow, all the while asking those critical questions we all ask: Where am I going? Who do I want to become? How can I make my life better? Can I be accepted for who I am despite my weaknesses? Are these not the questions we all seek to answer in life?
Such was the case in Gene’s young life, and he was able to attend college and earn a degree in pre-law with an emphasis on police studies. In the meantime he earned his pilot’s license and became an accomplished civilian pilot – one of the many dreams he sought as a youth, to reach forth and become better beyond his circumstances. He would soon find his piloting skills thrust into action in World War II as a B-17 pilot, and Gene would pilot over 80 bombing missions and later earn the Distinguished Flying Cross. On a civilian mission his plane crashed, and he provided peaceful communications with the locals while awaiting help. Gene was the only survivor of the India to Istanbul flight, and even then such dreams would serve a critical impetus later in his life.
Gene followed in his father’s footsteps and became a policeman with the Los Angeles Police Department, but he earnestly desired to become a writer. During the 1950’s he wrote first under assumed names then later under his own name, eventually writing for shows such as “Have Gun, Will Travel”, “Highway Patrol”, “The Naked City”, and “Dragnet”. Gene’s experience as a police officer, his exploits working the skid row beats and interactions with drug addicts and criminals, made him one of the most highly sought after writers in Hollywood because of his accurate reproductions of life and crime. Even at that early time his shows were not about the technology but about people. Even his first series, the short lived 1960’s series “The Lieutenant”, dealt with issues of peace and exploration.
To do a science fiction series set in the future, in which dreams of exploration, equality, and humanity for all were present, was in the time of the 1960’s certain career suicide. But Gene Roddenberry persisted. His ideas for “Star Trek” were embraced by the then-top caliber of science fiction writers everywhere: Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Poul Anderson, Frank Herbert, and Harlan Ellison among them agreed that it would not be the technology that made the future worth enduring and believable, that it was humanity that would survive its conflicts within itself to embrace the future. This belief in a positive future would be embraced by the fans who kept the original series alive for a third season, who supported the conventions in the 1970’s, who petitioned for the return of “Star Trek” to the movies and television through the 1980’s.
The one enemy that Gene Roddenberry could not escape was his own mortality. During the first couple of seasons of “The Next Generation” he began turning daily control and production over to the man who would inherit the “Star Trek” franchise, Rick Berman. While Roddenberry believed that humanity would overcome its sense of inner conflict, he also understood that sometimes it requires conflict to reach that peace, that sometimes it took going through the worst to get to the best.
Shortly before his death in 1991, Roddenberry had been plagued with debilitating strokes that robbed him of his mobility and his speech. While the body was decaying, the mind was still filled with sparks and fire. Even then he knew his greatest achievements:
“Even if it has to be the continuity of my errors, at least it must have continuity. You must have the courage to do it your way and stick with it. You must also realize you need to bring in artists and listen to them and take their advice. But within those limits, stay true to your dream.
“I think perhaps the best piece of advice I’ve had came from my grandmother who told me to believe in myself, to believe in humanity, and to be patient and give them the chance to realize what they are.
“I do not believe the future is anything but positive – because we’ve already made that choice. I think technology will save us. And I think our own goodness will save us. … Basic human decency. An inborn resistance to inflicting pain on ourselves, on others. An ability to nurture our children, to protect them, is a good example of innate human goodness. Our ability to feel sorry, to sympathize with others. The wish to help. These things are part of our nature. The conflict comes when our needs conflict with those of others. And, of course, when we don’t recognize what our needs really are. But we’re learning. … Goodness is the impulse to improve the health and happiness of the species. I think that’s clear. It becomes less clear between individuals, especially when one person regards another as responsible for his or her own happiness. Then you have people saying, ‘Oh, you are not good to me, because I want this or that and you will not give it to me.’ That’s nonsense. My meaning really refers to humanity as a whole. Individual conflicts really don’t matter in that sense. It’s the progress of the species that counts.”
Some people viewed Roddenberry as manipulator and thief who stole their ideas and rewrote them to fit his own concepts. Much controversy has surrounded the development of one of the finest hours in “Star Trek”, the celebrated “City on the Edge of Forever”, originally a morality play about drug usage, but under the final guiding words Roddenberry scripted became a modern Greek tragedy: risking the good of the universe for one person’s life. Others viewed Roddenberry as a hedonist filled with appetite and energy, which reflected in the character of Kirk.
Nevertheless, before the end of his life, Roddenberry knew of plans for the continuation of the “Star Trek” saga after his death and blessed Rick Berman and Michael Piller with the plans for that third series. Would Roddenberry have liked “Deep Space Nine”, with its emphasis on the darker side of humanity – military, politics, religion, war – but above all holding true to his legacy? Probably so. Would he have liked the development of the “Next Generation” film series? Maybe. Would Roddenberry have approved of “Voyager”? Maybe, maybe not. Would he have approved of “Enterprise”? Probably so, since it is closer in time frame and tone to his original series. But one thing that he knew is that he would have certainly approved of a “Star Trek” series that made his original series look like nothing.
Ten years later we’re all still searching for that answer. Perhaps Gene Roddenberry got it when someone said of him, “He loved humanity.” Perhaps that, then, is the legacy he left us for not only the future of “Star Trek” but our own future as well, even in these uncertain times. It’s not so much slapping a crew onto a ship in space and calling it “Star Trek”, as it is about embracing those qualities we all possess, accepting ourselves for who we are, dealing with the strengths and weaknesses we all have in us, and working to achieve our dreams and goals in life, whether or not we all get to outer space. To quote David Gerrold, “Space is not the final frontier. The final frontier is, first and foremost, the human soul. Space is merely the next place we will go to meet that frontier.”
Unexpected Legacy
Written for TrekWeb by O. Deus, edited by Steve Krutzler
Ask the average Star Trek fan about Gene Roddenberry's legacy and you'll
get many answers. Some will briefly touch on utopian ideals, opposition to
war, a faith that man will survive the current troubles of his time and then
go on to explore the stars. Others will mention his advocacy of integration
and peace. Liberals will touch on IDIC and the Prime Directive as expressing
ideas of cultural diversity and anti-colonialism, while Conservatives might
point to Captain Kirk's ready use of force in defense of his ship and the
Federation and perennial violation of the Prime Directive. Some will use
what they perceive to be Gene Roddenberry's legacy to argue for or against
the inferiority of the modern day Star Trek franchise and its spin-offs. And
finally others will claim that Gene Roddenberry was vastly overrated and
took credit for the contributions of others, quoting disgruntled Original
Series writers such as Harlan Ellison and David Gerrold.
Dig through enough biographies and personal recollections about Star Trek
and Gene Roddenberry and you might get to know the man, or at least think
you do. The recent market in Star Trek memoirs has drastically fallen off,
but there are still no shortage of tales about Roddenberry's personal life
and business practices. There has even been a play written on the subject
which played fitfully in New York and London. But ultimately Gene
Roddenberry's legacy is not Gene Roddenberry the man, anymore than the
legacy of any writer is his own personality and history. Contrary to the
views of some who think Star Trek is a religion, Star Trek is a fictional
franchise, a creative work of the imagination and Roddenberry's personal
life is no more relevant to that, than Charles Dickens' or Samuel Clemens'
lives are to a reading of their works. While there are some within fandom
who have made Roddenberry into a quasi-mystical visionary figure, they do
not represent the majority of Star Trek fans who are attracted to the work,
rather than the man.
When we eliminate the life of Roddenberry, what remains as his legacy is
the work we know him for. Some of us may have actually watched The
Lieutenant or Pretty Maids All in A Row, but being Star Trek fans for us
that generally means Star Trek itself is that legacy. Today there are other
shows on television bearing his name and his credit, but those were
implemented well after his death. Some of them have more connection to his
actual work than others; but none of them are his legacy. The question then
becomes one of the sub-division of Star Trek itself. As with many popular
genre fictional fanchises such as Isaac Asimov's Robots and Foundation
novels or Frank L Baum's Oz; Star Trek was and is maintained and expanded
after its creator's death ; thus creating a primary body of work and a
posthumous extension of that body of work by others. And even within the
primary body of work, we have a split between the Star Trek of the pre-movie
era and the Star Trek of STTMP and STTNG; which have striking philosophical
differences amongst themselves.
And that is exactly where the problem begins; the perception of Star Trek
as a creative fictional work and as a philosophical one. Many fans favor one
or the other, focusing in on the characters and the drama while discarding
the philosophy, while others view the characters and plots as simply
vehicles for expressing those ideas. Some favor a mixture of both
approaches, yet this does not make the task of analyzing Roddenberry's
legacy any easier, whether to view him as a Great Imaginator or a Great
Philosopher. As an Imaginator in the realm of Tolkein or Clarke, we could
simply dissect the creative and imaginative elements that made his work so
successful; while as a Philosopher in the style of C.S. Lewis or Heinlein we
would be forced to judge and evaluate his ideas. What places Roddenberry on
the cusp of that barrier is both how Roddenberry integrated the two within
the original series; never allowing either to truly predominate. While
Tolkein's works had an underlying philosophy and C.S. Lewis attempted to
craft a narrative and characters; their works are clearly dominated by
rigorous envisioning in the former and philosophical exemplum's in the
latter; neither really predominated. At least neither predominated within
the original series.
Where the Roddenberry original series managed to mix both, the STTMP and
STTNG Roddenberry had clearly set out to be a philosopher preferring cosmic
drama over human drama. Such is not unusual in a writer who has suddenly
gained a sense of the scope of his influence and the ideas that people had
derived from it. And so a more mature Roddenberry created a philosophical
Captain, more in tune with Socrates than with a swashbuckling naval sea
Captain. But was this Roddenberry, the true vision of Star Trek unencumbered
by network interference or a version of Roddenberry influenced by his own
success and committed to defending the purity of ideas that were indeed
never so pure?
And here it is that we come to what most people can agree was the legacy of
both the Roddenberry series', the portrayal of a better world. Here was
where Roddenberry the philosopher and the imaginator came together. Where
C.S. Lewis used his narrative to talk about Christian moral ideas, Star
Trek's narrative could not be dismissed that way. It was populated by real
living flesh and blood characters who hurt and felt and dreamed. And where
Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, despite the mythical structure of the
Simmarlion and the author's own personal beliefs, did not truly posses an
evolving moral structure that could provide the underpinnings for a
philosophy; Star Trek managed to achieve it even if it had to be through
dubious symbols as the IDIC badge. At times throughout the portrayal of that
better world, Roddenberry the philosopher predominated delivering lectures
about the world and the nature of human beings and at times Roddenberry, the
imaginator predominated giving us a look at an amazing new universe; but
always there was that better world.
And to understand Roddenberry's legacy, we must understand that better
world, both as he saw and how we see it.
A Better World
On a grey day such as today when the buildings of lower Manhattan are
shrouded in fog and the East River is a green mire, you can remember days
when the fog would entirely cut off the top third of the Twin Towers and for
a moment you can still imagine that the empty spot in the skyline is merely
a pervasive fog that will lift with a new day. But go down Broadway, past
the barricaded city and federal courthouse buildings, the newly renovated
City Hall pale and quiet in the cold morning and then down to the now almost
ironically named Liberty Street where the dark hulk of the remains of the
World Trade Center can be seen through the barriers streaked with memorials
and flags, like some monstrosity from a post-apocalyptic movie and it is
impossible to deny the truth any longer.
Behind the barriers, the khaki army vehicles and the temporary fences;
Broadway is crowded with people filming, photographing and just looking.
Young girls from some religious organization stand around handing out
booklets with the image of a rising sun and the words, "A Better World -
Comfort and Healing." Few people take the booklets though. No one has come
here for a view of a better world and indeed standing here on Broadway, just
a few blocks from Wall Street, and looking up at the charred windowless
debris piled stories high, it is hard to think of a better world, let alone
envision it. Yet paradoxically enough, it is often tragedy and horror that
gives birth to utopias. It is darkness that inspires a search for the light
and the reality of a deeply flawed world that forces the vision of a better
one.
Roddenberry himself was certainly not living in that better world, when he
created Star Trek and though this atrocity of a century yet to come was
still decades away, a brief perusal of the history books will showcase any
number of horrors occurring in his generation. It is said that faith is born
of times that test faith and that is the key impulse here; to set an
intangible idea of a better world against a tangible reality of rubble and
dust. As such Utopian fiction often tries to make its reality quite detailed
with extensive plans for an ideal government and an ideal way of life that
overcomes humanity's worst nature. Star Trek on the other hand has shown a
complete disinclination to deal with the nature of the UFP government or
even its society. We are told that many of the problems of the past no
longer endure, but now how they disappeared, nor beyond a few brief flashes
are we really shown what life is like in the 23rd or 24th centuries.
Where standard utopian fiction showcases a better world by leading the
reader via a tour guide through the utopia, Star Trek completely ignores the
actual better world, in favor of the frontier of space. We are told about
that better world and we see its representatives in the crews whose
adventures we follow. Rather than showcasing a plaster utopia, Star Trek
instead is the story of the confrontation between its explorers and soldiers
and the strange new worlds around them, not caring that an Earth without
poverty, racial hatred or war, might from the perspective of the 20th
century, be the strangest new world of them all.
And that is the paradox of the "better world" in that it is not a better
world that we see, not a better world that is defined and nailed down as
some loose collection of 20th century wish-fulfillment ideas and
pseudo-scientific theories, likely to be as dated and as controversial as
Walden Two, only a few decades later; but it is one that has mostly left the
viewer's imagination. Aspects of that world, like much of Star Trek, have a
distinctly American feel to it but it is still a rather open ended world
politically, if not socially or culturally. As such it becomes not the
promise of a better world tha,t like most utopian fiction, is dependent on our
following certain specific guidelines.
There is no clear path and certainly no direct route between now and
then. (And not even the latest spin-off, Enterprise, which proposes to
explore the birth of the federation has attempted to feature that route.)
Indeed "now" slants off into World War 3 and genetic supermen and massive
devastation on an unimaginable scale. From there, humanity follows an
unclear and clouded path which allows it to deal with most of what we now
think of as the worst of human nature. That path is not the subject and
neither is the actual world of that better future; what we are left with
then as the subject is the very possibility itself of the existence of that
better world.
As philosophy this seems rather odd. No direct route is proposed and the
final achievement isn't on display. Instead all that Star Trek seems to
offer is just the bare idea that such a better world can be achieved. As
Science Fiction, which in the era of Star Trek used to pride itself on
rigorously working out the details of futuristic societies and futuristic
technologies, it is also rather odd and out of place. Roddenberry the
Philosopher and Roddenberry the Imaginator come together within Star Trek
around the idea of a better world, yet we're never shown that better world.
Instead we have the idea of a world without today's problems, or so we seem
to believe.
Yet Star Trek is far from a utopia. There are occasional episodes of
bigotry directed against aliens. There is corruption within Starfleet's own
ranks and its Captains, Admirals and Ambassadors are quite human and quite
fallible. Its rules designed to maintain a moral order, like the Prime
Directive are broken more often than not. Its wondrous futuristic
technologies, e.g. the transporters, break down as often as they work. In
short, the world of Star Trek is a rather defective utopia. More accurately
it is a better world, not a perfect world. The distinction is significant
because that description could just as well apply to 20th century America
versus 16th century England and 16th century England vs 1000 AD. It is not
the achievement of static perfection, but a gradual improvement, an upgrade
in social, technological and political conditions.
Within Science Fiction itself, it's widely accepted that trying to
accurately predict the future is a fool's game. The only means to actually
produce a plausible future, is by not predicting it or showing it. Star
Trek's few attempts at predicting the future, produced some embarrassing
continuity glitches such as the launch of the Botany Bay in 1999. From a
Science Fictional perspective, Star Trek's solution to creating a plausible
futuristic society is effective enough because there is no detailed
framework to discredit, only the idea that despite everything, things will
continue improving. This also makes for an effective philosophical message
to communicate. By essentially aiming low, not crafting a utopia, but simply
proposing the possibility that we will not perish, but that the human race
will survive and endure to see a better day Roddenberry produced a plausible
philosophical message.
By not trying to create a better world, but simply invoking the idea of
it; Roddenberry produced an unexpected legacy, a utopian franchise oriented
around a magician's trick, a world that doesn't really exist even within the
fictional framework of the show and yet has become one of the most widely
known SF fictional universes of all time. Despite the excesses of the
post-STTMP and STTNG Roddenberry, Star Trek was never about offering
solutions but raising questions and suggesting that if we look hard enough
for them, solutions are possible. The trouble with utopias is that they're
all too tangible. Grasp them, examine them, look at them from another angle
and they fall apart.
But this is never a threat that Star Trek has had to face, because it is
not a tangible utopia, but an intangible idea. It does not offer a solution,
but the possibility of a solution. Unlike other utopias, its world is not so
much a product of planning, but of faith in an invisible world. Gene
Roddenberry's legacy was to inspire that faith. And faith is the final link
between the philosopher and the science fiction creator. The creator must
convince the reader to suspend disbelief in order to explore that universe.
Star Trek's success is a testament to that faith. And faith is born out of
the times that test faith.
Gene In His Own Words
On the development of Next Generation from a letter to a friend (published in David Alexander’s book): "I am an independent artist to whom Paramount has laid down the challenge of a lifetime. They very carefully made it clear ‘No one thinks it can be done again.’ Could you turn your back on that? I certainly can’t. I’ve never begun a morning’s work without wondering if I’d win or lose artistically on that particular day–I know of no other way to work or attitude to have."
On network pressure to put a chaplain onboard the Enterprise (March 1991 interview with Alexander for The Humanist): “Presumably, each one of the worlds we were dealing with was very much like Earth in that several religions must have arisen over time. Contending religions. How could you have a chaplain if you’ve got that many people of different and alien beliefs on your ship? With as many planets as we were visiting, every person on the ship would have to be a chaplain!”
On Gene’s rejection of organized religion: “They [priests] said God was on high and he controlled the world and therefore we must pray against Satan. Well, if God controls the world, he controls Satan. For me, religion was full of misstatements and reaches of logic that I just couldn’t agree with.”
On NBC’s unwise decision to cancel TOS: “A fellow from demographics came to NBC and said, ‘Congratulations, you’ve just got rid of your most important and successful program.’ They did not know what he a was talking about. Star Trek had a low rating, and they didn’t understand what he meant.
”He told them that, demographically, the people who were watching it were the people who were buying new cars, building new homes, et cetera. With regular ratings points, the network was just counting heads — retired fireman’s widows and the like. Star Trek had reached an audience they had never considered important: a narrowly---group of consumers which accounted for much of the buying power of the country at that time.
”NBC argued for about a year over bringing the program back but by then was–to bring Star Trek back. – would have appreciated them telling – about all this then. My ego was going downhill after the show was terminated. I needed a boost.”
On how he’d like to have been remembered: “That I had great patience with and great affection for the human race. I do not believe problems needed to be solved immediately in present-day terms, and, strangely, that I had a philosophy that did not know what "immediately" was. Perhaps, "tomorrow" is 500 years from now. What we humans are is really a remarkable thing. How can you doubt that we will survive and mature? There may be a lot of wisdom in the old statement about looking on the world lovingly. If we can, perhaps the world will have time to resolve itself.”
For more of this interesting interview from The Humanist, read the full text here.
Gene’s representation of humanist philosophy in STAR TREK also has generated vehement criticism from religious scholars. Dr. Louis A. Turk says “If Roddenberry’s philosophy is the philosophy you want your children to learn and to live by, fine: the heros and heroines of Star Trek are all humanists. But if you want your children to grow up to believe in God and Jesus Christ, you had best not let your children watch "Star Trek." To read more analysis and criticism of humanism in TREK, check out Turk’s page here.
Favorite 'Episodes'
We asked several of the people who have worked on STAR TREK and with Gene over the years -- producers, writers, production personnel, assistants -- to share with us some of their moments with Gene and their thoughts about Gene and his creation on this tenth anniversary of his death...
Michael Piller, co-executive producer TNG, co-creator/executive producer DS9 and VOY, writer INSURRECTION recalls that "My first time in Roddenberry’s 'Box' was during the very first episode I worked on as head writer. We were already in production of season three, four shows were finished, twenty-two still to do. There were no scripts and no stories to shoot the following week. Desperate, I bought a spec script that had been sent in from an amateur writer named Ron Moore who was about to enlist in the U.S. Navy. It was a rough teleplay called “The Bonding” and would require a lot of reworking but I liked the idea. A female Starfleet officer is killed in an accident and her child, overcome with grief, bonds with a holographic recreation of his mother rather than accept her death.
"I sent a short description of the story to Rick and Gene. Minutes later, I was called to an urgent meeting in Gene’s office. “This doesn’t work” he said. “In the Twenty-Fourth Century, no one grieves. Death is accepted as part of life.”
"As I shared the dilemma with the other staff writers, they took a bit of pleasure from my loss of virginity, all of them having already been badly bruised by rejections from Gene. Roddenberry was adamant that Twenty-Fourth Century man would evolve past the petty emotional turmoil that gets in the way of our happiness today. Well, as any writer will tell you, ‘emotional turmoil’, petty and otherwise, is at the core of any good drama. It creates conflict between characters. But Gene didn’t want conflict between our characters. “All the problems of mankind have been solved,” he said. “Earth is a paradise.”
"Now, go write drama.
"His demands seemed impossible at first glance. Even self-destructive.
And yet, I couldn’t escape one huge reality. Star Trek worked. Or it had for thirty years. Gene must be doing something right.
"I accepted it as a challenge. Okay, I told the writers, I’m here to execute Roddenberry’s vision of the future, not mine. Let’s stop fighting what we can’t change. These are his rules. How do we do this story without breaking those rules?
"A day later, I asked for another meeting with Gene and Rick. And here’s how I re-pitched the story:
“When the boy’s mother dies, he doesn’t grieve. He acts like he’s been taught to act -- to accept death as a part of life. He buries whatever pain he may be feeling under this Twenty-Fourth Century layer of advanced civilization. The alien race responsible for the accidental death of his mother tries to correct their error by providing a replacement version of her. The boy wants to believe his mother isn’t dead, but our Captain knows she isn’t real and must convince the boy to reject the illusion. In order to do so, the boy must cut through everything he’s been taught about death and get to his true emotions. He must learn to grieve.”
"The new approach respected Roddenberry’s rules and by doing so, became a more complex story. He gave his blessing. And I began to learn how Roddenberry’s Box forced us as writers to come up with new and interesting ways to tell stories instead of falling back into easier, familiar devices."
Eric Stillwell, long time production associate on TNG, DS9, and VOY and co-writer of "Yesterday's Enterprise," offers another tale of a memorable meeting with Roddenberry: "I don't recall the exact day [the videotape of] our episode arrived, but I do recall the day that Susan Sackett called and said Gene Roddenberry wanted
to see me in his office. Always fearing the worst, I wracked my brain
wondering why Gene would want to see me. As it turns out, Susan had planned
a surprise viewing party in Gene's office, complete with a congratulatory
cake. I was caught completely off guard and totally surprised! Trent
[Ganino] was there, too, along with the writing staff and all the assistants.
We all sat down and watched the episode together. It was truly one of the
greatest moments in my life -- watching "Yesterday's Enterprise" for the very
first time -- together with my childhood idol, Gene Roddenberry. It was an
incredible, surreal moment which I will never forget."
Doug Drexler, senior illustrator on ENTERPRISE, scenic artist on DS9 for seven years and visual effects artist on VOY for two years, and makeup artist on TNG, shared his experiences with Mr. Roddenberry: "First let me start by saying that I was one of the original Trek fans and was there in 1966 right from the very beginning. I was a huge science fiction fan and read everything that I could lay my hands on. It was easy to see that the people who made Star Trek were science fiction people. I felt a kinship immediately. As time went on I found out who Gene was and how sci fi had helped shape his life. I identified. It was a relief in many ways really to find an adult who loved science fiction. After alI, I was 13 years old and sci fi was not cool in 1966. As a matter of fact it could even get you beat up, if you dared bring a sci fi novel to school. I'm not kidding!
"I attended the very first Star Trek convention in NYC. The first time I saw Gene Roddenberry he was running a 16mm projector showing and narrating the infamous blooper reel to an audience for the first time. Wow, he seemed like a regular guy. The audience loved him!
"Anyway, flash forward a whole bunch of years. I'm working in the motion picture biz as a professional. I blame Star Trek and most particularly Stephen Poe's book. Seriously, the making of Star Trek was my first real education in film making. Anyway, they are prepping Star Trek: The next Generation and I am visiting Bob Justman on the Paramount lot. I'm hoping to get involved with the production from a makeup point of view. Bob was great, he knew I was a big fan and gave me the more than wonderful tour. I tagged along to a production meeting with ILM and after that Bob introduced me to Eddie Milkis which was a real pleasure. We were sitting in Eddies office talking makeup problems when the door burst open. It was an extremely animated Gene Roddenberry! "I've got it!" he blurts, "Picard turns the ship around and surrenders!" My jaw is slack. Everyone including Gene turns to look at me. " Gene," Bob says "You just melted this guys brain!".
"Another year or two later, I'm actually working as a makeup artist on The Next Generation. Hard work pays! The episode was "Yesterdays Enterprise", I'm on the bridge of the "C". Riker and company beam aboard looking for survivors. I'm roving the set putting blood and perspiration on people when I get the sensation that someone is watching. I look over my shoulder and there in a tall directors chair is Gene watching me work. The 13 year old kid in me keeled over but the professional makeup artist kept right on working. The circle is complete!
"Not long after that and after Dick Tracy (I was the makeup artist on Tracy) opened, I was on stage grazing the craft service table. I had just finished pouring myself a cup of coffee when a P.A. jogged up; "Are you Doug Drexler?". "That all depends, why?" I joked. "Mr. Roddenberry wants to see you!". "Holy crow! Am I fired?". I put my coffee down and followed. Gene is sitting on the bridge of the "D". I walked up to him with trepidation. He thrust his hand out. "I wanted to tell you what a wonderful job you did on Dick Tracy! We're very lucky to have you here!". That 13 year old kid was doin' a jig. Remember what Spock said in "City on the Edge of Forever"? That bit about the eddies and backwashes of time? It's all true.
"The company closed early so that the crew could go to Gene's memorial service at Pine Lawn. There were many familiar faces and a number of interesting stories. Patrick Stewart recounted how the studio resisted his casting as Captain Picard. "Wouldn't they have come up with a cure for baldness by the 23rd century?", the studio asked. "In the 23rd century," answered Gene smoothly, "no one will care."
"I also remember with fondness Ray Bradbury who got up to say a few words. "Gene and I would meet occasionally," Ray said, "to exchange mail."
Dan Madsen, founder of the Official STAR TREK fan club and the STAR TREK: COMMUNICATOR magazine, had this so add: "I recall my first meeting with Gene Roddenberry. I flew out to Paramount
Studios to interview him and I was nervous. Susan Sackett escorted me into
his office and immediately this huge teddy bear of man made me feel welcome.
He had a warm smile and friendly handshake. I sat down and began to tell Gene
how Star Trek had inspired me. He began to tell me the story of a handicapped
man he had met once at a party and who could not speak - he could only move
his hands in an erratic fashion and speak in gurgles. He was in a wheelchair.
Most people didn't think this man could communicate with others. However, his
parents knew better. They told Gene that he became excited when Star Trek
came on the television and would remain entranced in front of the TV while
Star Trek was on. It was shortly after they first started letting him watch
Star Trek that they discovered that he was able to communicate in a more
intimate fashion with others. At this party, when this handicapped man was
introduced to Gene and he was told that Gene had created the TV show Star
Trek, he was able to smile and point at Gene and say one of the first words
he had ever spoken..."thank you." "That," Gene told me in that interview, "is
why I did Star Trek and why it is important." I will never forget that first
meeting and the many subsequent meetings I had with Gene. He became a good
friend, a loyal supporter and someone I looked up to my entire life."
Rick Sternbach, TREK's senior illustrator from 1978 to 2001, shared his thoughts as well: "I suppose the recollection that has stayed with me the longest was
Gene's genuine interest in the future of spaceflight, and on a more
general level his concern for the future of humankind. I first met him
in 1974 after a screening of "The Cage" at Yale University, barely two
years after the last ever manned moon landing with Apollo 17. I had
already been working as a science fiction and astronomical artist, and
had a chance to talk with him for a couple of hours back in his hotel
room about different aspects of science and technology, and the
prospects for a Star Trek feature or another television series. Little
did I know that four years later, I'd be putting in months of work on
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture."
"
During that time we arranged for Gene to tour some of the facilities at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which assisted with the Voyager
spacecraft research and control panel displays. He was fascinated by the
space vehicle mockups and computer graphics (amazingly crude by today's
standards!), and asked interesting questions of the project scientists.
Some eight years later, I and my art department colleagues got to know
him a bit better during Star Trek: The Next Generation, as we sought to
reinvent Starfleet and alien hardware and the U.S.S. Enterprise itself.
His fascination with the updated technology was tempered with the
practical, which to me has always been a solid guiding principle. At one
early production meeting in 1987, we discussed many possible
communicator designs, mostly handheld widgets with Starfleet emblems.
Gene looked at them and said, "Why not just make the emblem the
communicator?" And we made it so. It was a great idea, and the techy
rationale for *how* it worked could be dealt with later. That kind of
interaction over the show's design was always appreciated.
Andre Bormanis, TREK science advisor and ENTERPRISE staff writer, told TrekWeb, "I started working as science consultant for Star Trek: The Next Generation
shortly after Gene passed away, so unfortunately, I never had the chance to
meet him personally. I did however attend a lecture he gave in 1976 at
Arizona State University. Growing up with the original series, it was
terrific to hear him talk about how he developed the show, and the vision
he was trying to create of a future filled with prosperity and adventure
for the human race.
"In retrospect, I feel very fortunate that when I was a young and
impressionable grade school kid my view of the future was largely shaped by
Gene's unfailing optimism. So much of the science fiction kids grow up
with today is dark and pessimistic, and I sometimes wonder if I would've
steered clear of a career in science and creative writing if that's the
kind of outlook I'd grown up with...
"It's a great privilege for me to work as a writer on the latest incarnation
of Star Trek. Every day I try to help make it the kind of show Gene would
have been proud to call a member of the Star Trek family."
Another long-time TREK staffer who wished to remain anonymous had this to say, "I consider myself very lucky to have worked on Star Trek while Gene was
still alive. Some folks have tried to villify him after the fact, but the
truth is that Gene was no more or less human than the rest of us.
Personally, I always found him kind, approachable, and generous with credit.
I think there's something almost heroic about an ordinary human being trying
to do something extraordinary for the rest of us. I'm very proud to have
been associated with Gene Roddenberry."
Bryan Fuller, staff writer and story editor on STAR TREK: VOYAGER told TrekWeb, "The guy created an amazing universe with a wonderful humanitarian philosophy and I'm deeply honored to have been a part of it."
Jay Chattaway, TREK composer reminds us that "Now, more than ever are Gene's ideals and visions ringing true. It is been an honor to help in some way to preserve this brilliant man's
dream of civilization's future."
David C. Fein, producer of the upcoming STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE -- THE DIRECTOR'S EDITION DVD told TrekWeb, "During the production of ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture—The Director’s Edition” I felt two very serious and equal responsibilities. The first was to create a feature film at the level of quality and scope of Robert Wise, and second, to respect and honour the vision and memory of Gene Roddenberry. I hope I accomplished both, and that Gene can enjoy the film from where he is now...and will smile.
"In a way, he contributed to ‘The Director’s Edition’... While searching Bob’s files we uncovered many collaborative memos between the two men, and eventually found a few post-release messages from Gene with his hopes and dreams for a future version of the picture. I felt as if Gene had somehow left a message behind for us to find... It was his guidance and agreement that what we were doing was necessary, and needed. Thank you Gene, your messages made walking in your footsteps both possible, and honourable.
"Gene was a visionary whose dream touched and helped to shape my life and the lives of millions of people. Given recent events, I hope that his dream of a unified and peaceful planet will someday be finally realized.
"I only saw Gene once in my life, and I know that I’ll forever cherish working with his spirit and his legacy today."
Michael Matessino, restoration supervisor of the STTMP:DE DVD also shared his thoughts. Michael tells us "The world is a better place because of what Gene Roddenberry brought to it. So long as his vision lives in all of us, so will he. Let us all continue the work he begun."
Daren R. Dochterman, visual effects supervisor for STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE - THE DIRECTOR'S EDITION, sent along these thoughts: "Since I was a tyke, I enjoyed the adventures of Kirk, Spock, and the rest with a fervor and excitement like nothing else. As I grew older, and my tastes refined, I found that this enjoyment not only sharpened, but deepened. Star Trek was one of the forces that led me to want to make movies, and be in the crazy entertainment business... I had gotten a chance to meet Gene Roddenberry at one of his east coast college lectures in 1975 (I was eight). He gave a talk, only some of which I comprehended, showed the infamous "blooper reels", and the unaired, black and white pilot, "The Cage"... That, above all, impressed on me the fact that this, indeed, was a real human being who was responsible for this... and that people could take steps to make dreams a reality. I never got a chance to work with him directly... but the spirit and enthusiasm he had has informed me and inspired me for nearly my entire life."
John Ordover, senior editor for STAR TREK at Pocket Books shares, "The only time I saw Gene in person was at a stadium at the Meadowlands, where he was touring with a presentation that included the uncut original print of THE CAGE. He was a dynamic man, very intelligent, very creative, and with a strong appreciation of the history of science fiction from which Star Trek was drawn."
Some Final Thoughts: The Legaxy of Many Embodied in One: Gene Roddenberry
Written for TrekWeb by Alexander Chase, edited by Steve Krutzler
"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."
Given the humanistic center of Star Trek, it is a decidedly peculiar thing to refer to a religious source for guidance in defining the legacy of Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry. However, the need - and appropriateness - to do so arises from the extreme difficulty in bringing definition to that legacy. Gene Roddenberry was not a writer like Shakespeare, though there are certain parallels in that the stories we associate with them have the virtue of being both of their time and transcending that time by providing insight into the human condition, human motivations and human actions: Shakespeare's tapestry was the past; Roddenberry's was the future. However, while the comparison can take us some distance down the path to defining Gene Roddenberry's legacy, it is not enough to complete the journey. Shakespeare's was the single hand holding the pen that wrote Hamlet, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, and Macbeth; but while Star Trek is undoubtedly associated with one man named Roddenberry, it is also undeniably the work of many hands.
Gene L. Coon, D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, Harlan Ellison, Robert Justman, Harve Bennett, Leonard Nimoy, Nicholas Meyer, Maurice Hurley, Michael Piller, Rick Berman, Ira Steven Behr, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Ronald D. Moore, Brannon Braga: these names of some who have contributed to the legacy of Star Trek - and that of Gene Roddenberry - is already substantial and yet remains woefully inadequate. Indeed, the night sky of Star Trek is lit bright by these many stars. And while there is no denying that Gene Roddenberry's is the brightest in the sky, it is equally undeniable that his light is only enhanced by the panorama of the night tapestry.
And yet, it was the one star which drew the others into that sky.
It was Gene Roddenberry, with the concept "wagon train to the stars", who conceived of a science fiction show characterized by its intelligence. It was Gene Roddenberry who conceived of such a show at the cusp of television's international dominance as the principal medium of news, information and entertainment. And though science fiction as a genre had existed in written form since the late-19th century of H.G. Wells and Edgar Allen Poe, it was Roddenberry's humanistic star-journey that introduced intelligent science fiction to a new generation - international in scope and greater in number than ever before - through the popular medium of television. And it was through Star Trek that writers like Robert Bloch, Harlan Ellison, and Theodore Sturgeon were discovered anew by this audience, and through them a generation of science fiction's giants: Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clarke. Roddenberry's Star Trek was like a pebble rippling the surface of a pool of calm water where one's discovery of the ripples was just as- and often even more - rich and stimulating than the pebble which raised them to the surface.
Gene Roddenberry did more than introduce generations of viewers to Star Trek. Star Trek introduced generations to the rich multi-woven fabric of science fiction itself. In doing so, Star Trek enriched those to whom it introduced a genre but it also enhanced the very genre it claimed as its own. Gene Roddenberry as creator designed and constructed the foundations of this now 35 year old structure. His contemporaries and successors continue to add their own creative flair to that structure whilst ever mindful of the foundation on which they build. But more importantly, the structure itself is never completed. It is never completed because it is our own unfolding story, the story of Humanity itself. Because of Star Trek we are able to imagine the multitude of ways in which Humanity's own story might unfold. However, we are secure in the knowledge that the stories we imagine will pale in comparison to the reality of a future which truly lies beyond our imaginings. Such is the strength of our foundations.
How then might one summarize Gene Roddenberry's legacy and that of his creation, Star Trek? If you will forgive the conceit, then perhaps in this way:
And the child asked him, "Who are you?"
"My name is Humanity," Gene Roddenberry replied, "for we are many."
