Roddenberry And Joseph

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:58 pm

It came up in a different thread so I'm hoping to get more of the real story here.

From the little knowledge I have (mostly from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1696111)

It sounds like Joseph was a diagramming genius and the primary source of the stuff in the first technical manual. But instead of creating things for Roddenberry he started creating his own slight variant on the ST universe and his own designs. These were referenced by paramount in the movie. It sounds like after that Roddenberry considered him more of a threat than an asset and set out to un-cannonize what Joseph had done in an effort to retain sole creative control of the ST universe.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:51 pm

Interesting, I didn't know about this.

I did hear that the director of the second Star Trek movie was able to go completely against Roddenberry's wishes and militarize the hell out of Star Trek, including getting rid of pajamas.

Its also interesting that the artical credits the technical manual as reason for the Star Trek Movie while an interview with Spock credited Star Wars' success.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:43 pm

Here's the story as I read it as written by Joseph's daughter.

When Joseph started doing the Tech Manual Gene was an active supporter. He talked to Joseph often about it, had input into many aspects of it, and was perfectly happy with the way it came out.

However, then TMP comes around. Now Gene sees all the merchandising possibilities the film might generate... but if it's all based on stuff somebody else has drawn, then Joseph might well be able to demand a cut of the pie. So Gene re-writes the Starfleet universe, with the specific intention of making it different to Joseph's.

For instance - the starship design rules suddenly appeared. And lo and behold, they rule out every one of the designs Joseph created. Even numbers of nacelles rules out the single nacelle ships and the three nacelled one. Nothing between nacelles rules out the tug, etc.

The Starfleet loge was similar to Joseph's but redesigned. Starfleet HQ was changed from a space base to an Earth surface installation. And so on.

According to Joseph's daughter, the specific intent of all of this was to invalidate the fandom version of Starfleet that was becoming widely accepted, so Gene could better capitalise on the franchise himself.

I have no idea if any of that is true. But... well having read a bunch of stuff about Gene, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:48 pm

Yeah, all accounts were that he was kind of a jerk. A jerk who was very attached to an idealized and peaceful human future. Makes you scratch your head.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:15 pm

Given what I've heard of his personality, that seems like it would fit in fine with him.

RK_Striker_JK_5 · Post by **RK_Striker_JK_5** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:57 pm

Somewhat contradictory there, his vision for the future and who he was. *Shakes head*

I liked a lot of the ideas from the tech manual, too. A lot of it's in my personal canon.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:28 am

One of my favourite lines from the book Good Omens was where a Demon was wondering at the nature of man... musing that men could engage in evil that would make any self respecting demon tremble with revulsion - or perform acts of kindness the likes of which no angel would conceive. And most bizzarely, half the time it was the exact same person doing both things.

Gene was a man both good and bad. His faults may have been bigger than yours or mine... but he helped give the world something I think is pretty special, too.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:17 am

That's probably the best introspective bit in that book. But Shadwell's loaded finger may be the best comedic bit.

Post by **Mikey** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:40 am

In fact, the whole idea of "canon" - an interesting choice of word, since Gene was against most forms of organized religion - was to put down the possibility of anyone besides himself capitalizing on 'Trek. Q.v., what Roddenberry did with the song "Beyond Antares."

And it is a very interesting point that Gene's non-economically-driven future was the idea of a man who did so much to line his own pockets.

Grundig · Post by **Grundig** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:02 am

What did Roddenberry do to develop this butthead reputation of his? I've never heard of it before.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:40 am

Being a tight fisted asshole who screwed over friends and held a strangle hold on trek for close to 30 years. Sure he created it but many people added to it and helped with it and while they might not be able to claim an official hold to it they should at least be treated with respect.

He was also a womaniser and just a general horribal person to know.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:36 pm

schizo-hal wrote:What did Roddenberry do to develop this butthead reputation of his? I've never heard of it before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Rodde ... oddenberry

Has some info.

Still it sounds like his cash flow and control of Star Trek were continually threatened. (And occasonally lost). So I can empathize somewhat.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:11 am

Sure doesn't explain how he treated Majel, though.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:55 pm

Jordanis wrote:Yeah, all accounts were that he was kind of a jerk. A jerk who was very attached to an idealized and peaceful human future. Makes you scratch your head.

So its like Bush talking about peace! Or Reagan talking about saving money! Or Clinton talking about marriage! Or.... I'll stop now.

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:28 pm

Yeah, from what I've heard, Roddenberry was something of a jerk...and quite a bigot when it came to religion or anyone who didn't share his 'perfect' vision of humanity. But, hey, Star Trek still rocks!