MovieChat Forums > Star Trek (1966) Discussion > How much credit does Gene Roddenberry de...

How much credit does Gene Roddenberry deserve for Star Trek's diversity?

posted 2 years ago by TMC-4 (19460)
8 replies | jump to latest

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a39982146/star-trek-diversity-fell-short/

The original 1964 Star Trek pilot was "whitebread," says Ryan Britt. It was left to new additions Nichelle Nichols and George Takei in the revamped edition of what would eventually air to define their characters' diversity. "Although Roddenberry is lauded for casting Nichols and Takei in the roles of Uhura and Sulu, his first attempt at Star Trek—1964’s rejected pilot episode, 'The Cage'— wasn’t populated by any people of color, even as background characters," says Britt.

"Infamously, NBC didn’t like that first-draft version of Star Trek, and miraculously, Roddenberry (along with Desilu Studios) was given another chance. And yet, if 'The Cage' had been accepted, and that whitebread Star Trek had been picked up for a series run, would Roddenberry have still thought to bring on a more diverse cast? His motivations for pushing for representation seem laudable enough; after all, Roddenberry pushed for diversity on The Lieutenant. But it’s still more than a little odd that the first filmed pilot of Star Trek ('The Cage') wasn’t remotely progressive in terms of diversity. And even by the second pilot ('Where No Man Has Gone Before'), Uhura’s not there yet, and Sulu is oddly not the guy flying the ship; instead, he’s a physicist and seems more like a consultant for Spock than a starship pilot. In terms of filming order, Uhura doesn’t appear until the third episode of Star Trek produced, “The Corbomite Maneuver,” an episode that nobody thinks of as the real pilot episode to the ‘60s Star Trek, but totally should. If you’re confused, it’s understandable. 'The Corbomite Maneuver' aired tenth and is still considered the tenth episode of the classic show."

Britt adds: "There are many ways to look at Roddenberry. Was 'the Great Bird of the Galaxy' an early social justice crusader who just happened to be a TV producer? Was he a half-a**ed humanist sci-fi philosopher? Like many pivotal historical figures, Roddenberry can’t be defined by just one trait. His creation of the idealistic United Federation of Planets sometimes feels as important as the signing of the Declaration of Independence. As an American, I’m thankful that George Washington existed, but I’m also aware that George Washington wasn’t the greatest person. Roddenberry wasn’t as bad as all that, but you can see where this is going. He was the founding father of the science fiction country of dreams called Star Trek. In creating Star Trek, Roddenberry unwittingly created a new art form, one spanning several types of media that will likely last for at least a hundred years."

[–] kwestmo (4153) 2 years ago

Roddenberry was a con man

[–] Guitar King (4400) 2 years ago

Why is Ryan Britt and Esquire so antisemitic?

[–] brux (14666) 2 years ago

So what ... more clickbait, tweak people's emotions kind of stuff.
Few today understand what the world was like in the 1960's.
Star Trek is an odd occurrence, but Star Trek episodes varied from
the bland, to the subversive.

Now to what is weird about Star Trek. As the understanding of
what Roddenberry had created unfolded with the American public,
thanks to some of the best science fiction writers in the world,
the people who censor TV and make up stories about why they do
what they do, like the government does ... otherwise knows as the
TV censors realized that Star Trek was making people "Look Up"
to use a term that might ring a bell. It was what Republicans today
would call "Woke", because it was dangerous and not something
the ruling class valued in its average citizens. In fact or "betters"
wanted to discourage that in workers and average people - and
still do.

About war, and racism, and lots of other things that Star Trek had
allegorical stories about in the context of a Starship and existing in
a future Earth history.

The problem was that as the ideal of Star Trek was developing, the
reality of it in the media was devolving into the crap movies and
sequel series that we see today all over the streaming services.

We like to tack names in things, especially people's, but it is not always
the most fair or accurate thing to do, but Roddenberry no doubt was
responsible for pushing Star Trek to what it was.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (519) a year ago

The problem was that as the ideal of Star Trek was developing, the
reality of it in the media was devolving into the crap movies and
sequel series that we see today all over the streaming services.

It took me years to figure out why nothing past Next Gen felt like Trek to me, till it dawned on me that most of the Original and Next Gen episodes (oh, and the Animated ones as well) had some kind of a point to make, like the "morals" that ended Aesop's stories.

Then a while later, I watched a Next Gen DVD extra, where the writers told how insistent GR was that each episode be "about" something. They gave this example: They first approached him with a story outline where Q fools the crew into thinking he's lost his superpowers. GR said OK, but what's it about? They said, it's about him leading them on a wild-goose chase. He said no, that's not "about" anything. But what if he really had lost his superpowers and had to learn to cope -- that really would be "about" something! So of course they did it that way, and it's one of my favorite episodes.

I think that insistence may have been GR's greatest contribution to Star Trek -- and the greatest loss in most of the spin-off series.

[–] brux (14666) a year ago

> It took me years to figure out why nothing past Next Gen felt like Trek to me, till it dawned on me that most of the Original and Next Gen episodes (oh, and the Animated ones as well) had some kind of a point to make, like the "morals" that ended Aesop's stories.

That is why I always felt that Star Trek was so important historically, but also the high-point of American network TV, before nihilists took over and started to bastardize all of American TV, Movies, Music and Media in general.

I think it's why we have such a screwed up society today, those in high places were really figuring out what is what and that such ideals as Star Trek would eventually do away with the Power Elite and level society forever into the future.

To everyone else Star Trek was a kind of ideal, but to the masters it was a bigger threat than communism or fascism, and in fact fascism became the answer to counter the leveling motives of socialism.

The "Powell Memorandum" was written in 1971, a conscious discussion of how society was changing for the worse for those in power, and the call for a long-term conspiracy to take back power and do away with democracy except in name. Look at what we have today - a society that is a complete mind-f*** that we call democracy but that spends half of its effort in channeling money to an elite that is all about imperial expansion while it lies to the people about the exceptionalism of their country and how great their lives are.

And before Star Trek was the Outer Limits series that also had an explicit moral and point to its episodes, framed in the opening and summed up at the end. It was brilliant - and also Science Fiction. And of course the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, which not really moralistic was mind-expanding.\

Look at media today, and looks at the discussion of media here on MovieChat. It's revolting to see dementia on such a scale.

[–] brux (14666) 2 years ago

"Although Roddenberry is lauded for casting Nichols and Takei in the roles of Uhura and Sulu, his first attempt at Star Trek—1964’s rejected pilot episode, 'The Cage'— wasn’t populated by any people of color, even as background characters,"

Again, so what? Most of TV was lily white and it was just becoming to understand racism as a thing.

The implication here is that if Roddenberry was perfect he would have insisted that Star Trek do all the things it eventually did, before it got produced, and that because he either compromised or did not think about certain aspects of the show we all must agree to at least partially cancel Roddenberry, that imperfect hypocrite.

What poppycock.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (519) a year ago

The implication here is that if Roddenberry was perfect he would have insisted that Star Trek do all the things it eventually did, before it got produced ....

In which case neither the studio nor the network would have been willing to gamble on it!

So he may have bided his time on purpose. Or maybe he just hadn't thought of all that other stuff yet -- or hadn't yet figured out how to make money from it (thus the third-season introduction of the IDIC philosophy -- and just coincidentally the accompanying pendant, available for purchase from Lincoln Enterprises, owned by Majel Barrett).

[–] CarolTheDabbler (519) a year ago

"... his first attempt at Star Trek—1964’s rejected pilot episode, 'The Cage'— wasn’t populated by any people of color...."

Green isn't a color? :D Spock was an integral part of ST from the very start. Admittedly he was nowhere near the fleshed-out Spock that we now know, but Roddenberry included a blatantly non-human character in his main cast in order to continually remind viewers that they were in outer space, in the future.

"... Uhura doesn’t appear until the third episode of Star Trek produced, “The Corbomite Maneuver,” an episode that nobody thinks of as the real pilot episode to the ‘60s Star Trek, but totally should."

"Corbomite" is also the episode where the classic Spock starts to take shape. (Nimoy credited the transformation to that episode's director, Joseph Sergeant.) So yes, I'm willing to call it the first "real" Trek.

"There are many ways to look at Roddenberry. Was 'the Great Bird of the Galaxy' an early social justice crusader who just happened to be a TV producer? Was he a half-a**ed humanist sci-fi philosopher?"

Or a sex-crazed hedonist? A self-aggrandizing opportunist?

Possibly all of the above, to one extent or another. As the article mentions later, one reason Nichelle Nichols became a regular cast member was that GR was having an affair with her (cheating on his then-mistress, Majel Barrett, while married to his first wife). Maybe he had feet of clay, but he did have one really good idea in him.

"In creating Star Trek, Roddenberry unwittingly created a new art form ... that will likely last for at least a hundred years."

Seeing as how it's already lasted nearly sixty, that seems like a fairly safe bet.

One other tidbit from that article: It mentions GR's "1963–1964 military drama The Lieutenant ... with [Gary] Lockwood’s titular Lieutenant William Tiberius Rice ...." Makes me think GR probably had Kirk's middle name in mind all along.