Choose (yes, dammit, it's a star trek thread)

To suggest either of the other men could touch his genius is sacrilege!

Still, you're right. Roddenberry be the only one... :)

Those who replace Roddenberry put in their own marks, with arguably Bennett coming the closest, and even with my gripes about Abrams there's only so much one can do with an intro movie and despite the camp there were some scenes that I did like... his next movie will solidify things though...

***********QUOTE*********

.... ...entire canon of Star Trek.

Complete rewrite of history within the Star Trek universe, complete ignoring of 40 years of real world Star Trek care for the storyline and continuity and the characters. ....


...the entire ouevre of Star Trek, the entire dream and vision... ....

***********UNQUOTE*************


I'm sorry. I'm just not a Trekkie. I find these words regarding ST *hiLARious*!1

CANON of ST. HISTORY WITHIN THE ST UNIVERSE. (Especially THIS one: ) 40 YEARS OF REAL WORLD ST CARE!!!!!!!!!!!!1


BwahaHAH!1 O.K., fire away!1

(I was one of those nerds who wrote to NBC begging it to give Trek another season.)

It's freakin' fiction, a story for God sakes. Yes, it's swimming around in our myth pool along with Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Batman, Superman, King Arthur, Ulysses, etc. More the reason there's nothing sacred about the story lines. How many times has the Arthurian legend been rebooted? Forget the name, but I've read a very credible novel based on the idea that Holmes was in fact Jack the Ripper. I can still enjoy again another retelling of The Hound of the Baskervilles or The Sign of Four.

These characters have made it to the pool because they fulfill a psychological need. They are, among other things, tools to use to work out our hopes and our anxieties. Plus, they're fun to play with.

Again, Trek should be fun, not something to get all hot eyed and tight lipped over.

Not to mention, given the self-absorbed nature of modern society, most genres act and reflect the same things - empty soulless consumerism. The human nature discussion is still there, but it's out of the actual show and more for historians than viewers.

how many times have his plays been redone and retold and rebooted and reimagined. Hamelet has been done oodles of times and I would bet a lot of money that not any two performances are exactly the same. The original legends are only still around because people passed them on verbally. Ever play pass it down the alley? the end is never the same as the original.

Why did Hamlet hesitate? There's Olivier's take - a bad case of Oedipus complex. Branagh's: fear of the possible out come, ie kingdom unspooling. A couple from my lost years of reading lit crit: Unsure if the ghost was the real deal or a demon (wouldn't mean much to a modern audience, a realistic motivation to Bill's.), a lazy frat boy who didn't want the hassle or again to a 16th century audience regicide was right there with patricide for a crime you thought twice about before committing. And those are just 20th century takes. So pick your spin.

Hamlet is looooong play. All up nearly four hours, so what to cut. That one can generate an unnatural excitement in the lit class.

How to stage: Naturalistic, stylistic, modern setting, 16th century setting, antique? Another one that starts paint ball fights.

Nope, no two performances can ever be the same, even in the same stage run.

I really like what he did on DS9.

thanks to JMS letting Paramount look over his B5 Bible before they ultimately rejected it. The time lag between their getting it and rejecting was enough time for them to copy and change all the character names and put it in a Star Trek setting. I did like DS9 for the most part, but never forgave Paramount for copying it and then for the Trekkies of the time siding with Paramount. However, justice was served with the creation of Enterprise :P

Much less Mudd's Women or Cat's Paw. Surely Abrams and Berman jumped the timeline back to the 60s and released these horrible episodes, thereby casting us into an alternate universe in which Gene "Earth: Final Conflict" Roddenberry is the be-all and end-all of Star Trek. Thank goodness Roddenberry never put out any shit like The Questor Tapes, because that would have totally sucked.

It's also good to know that Roddenberry didn't have anything to do with the unwatchably bad first and second season of ST:TNG, because I probably couldn't forgive him for something like that.

and I LOVED IT!

in a populist way. Did pretty well for a guy who was a WW2 bomber pilot and an ex-LA cop. Not the background one would expect to produce an atheist, socialist idealist.