ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

You know, I must say,.....


GROUP: Members


Report this Jan. 18 2002, 8:44 pm

I’ve noticed many of you saying things about philosophy and such about Star Trek. I hate to tell you all, but there is no Roddenberry vision of the universe. ALL of st is marketing strategies. Roddenberry didn’t set out to change the world. He set out to make money.

If you notice, the Original Series is this utopian-type civilization, where everyone gets along, and a proud view of the future. VERY sixtiesish. All of his later stuff, though, was criticism of present earth, that we will feel repricutions in the future. These are very different and conflicting. At one point, he says it’s going to be okay, and later, that we will suffer. It’s all just a money making strategy. Now, I’m not trying to be mean, or argumentative, I just don’t want all of you to jump on someone else’s claims of discrepancies, because it’s not that big of a deal.

Now, continumq, we all know that you are critical of st, but just lay off. We all know that there may be discrepancies from one veiw of the future to the next, but if we all knew how the world would turn out, than the future would be now.

Oh, and by the way, I’m Admiral_Jojo, a fellow fan. Don’t be upset by my comments, I’m just doing this because I’m board. Also, I’ve taken a formal stance against proper spelling. If I’ve misspeled something, It’s because I refuse to proofread by principle. Languag’s tyrany has come to an end!

"Death to Proofreading!"
President of Spend the Children Foundation
[as opposed to save the children foundation]


GROUP: Members


Report this Jan. 22 2002, 5:38 pm

Who cares if it was just to make money. It gave us a goal to reach for. Peace with all of mankind. Can anybody else say they have projected a dream like that through the biggest franchise in the world? I didn’t think so. So you can just shove it. And it’s not sixtiesish, it’s sixties style or you could say old school. And if anyone should lay off it’s you. And I will proof read your paper. I happen to be one of the best writers in my town. But I don’t want to waste my time with fixing someone’s mistakes if they don’t know what they’re talking about.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 409

Report this Jan. 23 2002, 6:04 pm

At the end of the day, everything in TV and film is about making money at some level- but if the rich filmmakers and actors were interested in money alone, they’d have stopped ages ago- often there are deeper reasons for making shows and films. Roddenberry’s vison of the future in TOS and TNG is the same- a united, peaceful earth, where humanity has pushed beyond some of it’s baser instincts. They have slightly different ways of putting this message across, but that’s all.


GROUP: Members


Report this Jan. 25 2002, 3:24 pm

I don’t believe that Roddenberry did it just for the money. If he had he is just like Cochran. Cochran basically built the warp drive for money at the beginning. Then a whole new world opened up for him, and he didn’t care for the money has much has before the flight. So if Roddenbury was in it for the money in the beginning. His views of the show changed when a hugh group of the pop. wanted more at the ending of the first series.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 100

Report this Feb. 17 2002, 1:15 am

I don’t quite remember where I heard this, but I have heard that Gene Roddenberry really believed in the Star Trek universe. He thought it was really possible for mankind to live in harmony and explore space like that. That doesn’t sound like a money-monger to me...

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum