For example, I break with party orthodoxy by supporting nuclear power and advocating for research and experiments in ballistic missile defense (for the record, I don't think a Reagan-esque "Star Wars" impermeable shield is possible, but you never really know where programs like the US Army's Homing Overlay experiments might lead, and in any event, more research is better than less).
But today I break with the orthodoxy that Gene Roddenberry was a genius. Yeah, Star Trek was a good idea, and I like that vision of the future. But man, I can't believe I'm the only person to arrive at the conclusion that Roddenberry was, in many ways, Star Trek's worst enemy. It sounds like he was hard to work with, was plagued by a whole series of really bad ideas, and did his best to kill Next Generation before it ever really got started. The idea of the future having "no conflict" is laudable, and something we should work toward, but as a way of writing a dramatic TV show designed to entertain people, it sucks. We might as well watch Rachael Ray instead (and I sometimes do), and not just because she's cuter than Gene Roddenberry.
And in a way I think the cult of personality that has grown up around Gene Roddenberry is a disservice to a lot of other people who played very significant roles in Star Trek. Yeah, yeah, I know, de mortuis nil nisi bonum and all, but what about people like Gene L. ("the Other Gene") Coon, or D.C. Fontana, or Rick Berman, or even Bjo Trimble? (I don't actually know what Bjo Trimble's role in Star Trek really was, but I do know that she makes a good convention guest, and that's not a bad thing.)
Yeah, yeah, I know, without Roddenberry there wouldn't have been a Star Trek, and without him the show might have evolved in strange and unsavory ways (like Babylon 5, for example, which was brilliant up to and including the Shadow War, but after that it just sort of hung around in the house in a soiled t-shirt for a couple of years, never really doing much except piling up dirty dishes in the sink and squashing a butt-shaped dimple in the sofa). So let's give Roddenberry credit for a great idea and a nice vision, but also admit that without the contributions of a whole bunch of other people, Star Trek would probably have been pretty boring and unappealing.
While I'm breaking with things in the Trek universe, let me also say that I grow somewhat weary of the Shatner-bashers. I'm not saying Shatner's a great actor. I'm not even sure I know what a "great actor" really is. Maybe he's no Patrick Stewart, who I think is great, but I think allegations that Shatner's acting is "embarrassing" or "cringe-worthy" are over the top.
But here's what really wears me out - all the legions of minor and supplemental Star Trek actors who come along and write books "exposing" how mean and egocentric Shatner was. "He acted like he was the star of the show" seems to be a fairly common complaint. Well, he WAS the star of the show! That's why his name has top billing on the opening credits! My perhaps unjust opinion is that the show could have survived without actors like Walter Koenig or George Takei (not that I dislike them, by any means; Sulu was always a favorite character of mine), but I don't think the show would have survived without William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy or Deforrest Kelly. James Doohan is arguable either way - Scotty is an iconic character, but I think other people could have played him. But I suspect that James Doohan had a larger creative role behind the scenes than is widely known.
And now, a note about Star Wars. I watched a few interview segments with George Lucas the other day, wherein he seemed altogether fatigued with his own creation. I can't remember the quote exactly, but he said something akin to "I'm glad I'm done with Star Wars so I can stop having to please all these irritating fans and can do go things I want to do." Gee, George, excuse the fuck out of me for giving you some of my money by watching your movies. Had I know that making you RICH would be such a headache for you, I'd have gone to see A Bridge Too Far again instead.
Wasn't it Saturn who ate his own children? Maybe successful science fiction movie franchises are like Saturn, only instead of eating their children, they dement their creators. Roddenberry apparently came to believe that his success had made him infallible, and Lucas came to believe that popularity of Star Wars had become a burden of some kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment