Source:
TrekCulture on BlueSky
Link:
https://bsky.app/profile/trekculture.bsky.social/post/3mj5p545zus2g
Full interview on YouTube:
TREKMOVIE:
"Fred Bronson, who was working at NBC publicity during The Animated Series and wrote an episode along with co-writing TNG’s “Menage a Troi”; Denise Crosby, who played Tasha Yar on Next Gen; and Ernie Over, who was Gene’s driver and personal assistant, then Majel’s assistant, spending a total of 8 years in the Roddenberry household. With moderator John Champion (of the Mission Log podcast), they told stories, barely covering the tip of the iceberg of their experience."
Quotes:
"At the beginning of the panel Rod talked about Trek Nation, a 2011 documentary “that details Rod’s trek across America to discovery his father through the touchstones Gene left behind: his friends, his work, and his influence.” Moderator John Champion of the Mission Log podcast asked if it reshaped his understanding of who Gene was. “I got to humanize my father,” he said.
>Rod Roddenberry: “I got to learn about him from a different point of view, not not from the son point of view, but from other points of view, and humanizing him with all his strengths and weaknesses. … a flawed human being. He still came up with the initial concept of Star Trek and then put incredible people on the show to make it what it is today. And I’m I was able to love him again, because he was no longer on the pedestal. He was no longer just the great bird of the galaxy. He was this, I mean, as stupid as it is to say out loud, this flawed but incredible, forward-thinking man who, with all his strengths and weaknesses, was someone I could connect with.”
Looking back on the panel a week later, Rod told TrekMovie:
>“It was a deeply nostalgic experience, and I truly felt the love and admiration everyone had for my parents. The entire moment filled me with a profound sense of pride.”
[...]
When Gene was looking for a driver who could handle a Rolls-Royce, Fred recommended Ernie, who’d just driven one for a friend of his. “I didn’t know that I was actually going to be hired by Gene until a month or so later, when he called me over to the house and brought me in and introduced me to Majel as his new driver,” he told the group.
Rod wanted to make it clear that Ernie was more than just a driver to Gene:
>Rod Roddenberry: “Even though I was a kid, I wasn’t completely oblivious, and he was much more than that to my father… [to Ernie] And I know that my father looked to you as a confidant, someone that he could trust in anything. You were there, you were his right hand for for so many things, personal and business and all that. So I just there was no seeing my father in that era without Ernie or Ernie was his right hand … as we all know, in this industry, and of course, any other industry, finding people that you can really trust and lean into it can be very hard to do and rare. And so Ernie, I have tremendous amount of admiration and respect for you.”
Ernie reported he also provided Devil Wears Prada-style assists as needed:
>Ernie Over: “One of the one of the fun things that I got to do with Gene, we would be invited to National Space Society events, and we would have astronauts and NASA administrators at the house and things like that. And I had to know who was coming beforehand, because Gene, at that time, was in a wheelchair. And if there was someone walking towards Gene, I would have to know who it is, and I would have to lean back and say it’s Dan Goldin, NASA administrator. And so when he got to the chair, Gene would say, ‘Dan, good to see you.’ And it was that kind of thing, I was just supporting him, you know, his memory was not as great as it once was.”
He also got to meet some pretty impressive people, including Nobel prize winner Lech Walesa, the first-ever Polish president to be elected by a popular vote.
>Ernie Over: “Probably the biggest thrill we had was at an event when Lech Walesa, the President of Poland, was visiting Los Angeles, and we had a private meeting with him. And Gene studied Polish to say, in Polish, ‘Welcome, Mister President, to Los Angeles.’ And he practiced that and practiced it and practiced it and he got to say that to Lech Walesa, that was pretty cool, because you don’t get to meet the president of another country very often.”
After Gene died, Ernie worked for Majel… and learned some of her secrets.
>Ernie Over: “…one of the things I don’t think people knew much about Majel is she was a heck of cook. She really ruled the kitchen and and I would stay for dinner most nights, and she would just just go out of her way to make the dinners really delicious. And after Gene passed, I worked for her as a personal assistant, and I had to set up all of the convention dates and speaking engagements for her, and she was adamant that she had vegetarian meals at the hotel and on the airplane where I had to set that up. But what people didn’t know is that she always had a bag of beef jerky in her purse.”
[...]
[Denise Crosby] reconnected with Majel once she got the role of Tasha Yar. A lot of fans know the story of how she was auditioning to play Deanna and Marina Sirtis was up for the part of the security officer, but we’ll let her tell it in her own words.
>Denise Crosby: “This is after maybe three auditions … I’m still reading for Deanna Troi and Gene right there in the office said, ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you take the sides for Macha Hernandez, and go look at them, and come back and read that part?’ And you go, Sure, you know, of course, whatever you want me to do. And that’s how it how it flipped. He just flipped Marina and I right, right then and there.”
[...]"
Laurie Ulster (TrekMovie)
Full article:
Full video panel (Trek Talks 5):
https://www.youtube.com/live/H-lcrAVnAzY?si=ew2oZwoJtdYmgY8j&t=13433
AV CLUB:
"There's conflict in the episode, and some minor suspense about whether or not the main problem will be resolved in time for Stubbs to complete his work, and yet… Well, it's very pleasant. [...] As for Wesley, I like the idea of what they're doing here—I can't imagine him ever getting the full Quiz Kid Donnie Smith treatment, but I appreciate the awareness that being the smartest guy in the room has its downside. Yet, again, there's no follow-through.
[...]
"Evolution" is very passable. It isn't great. While none of its plots are terrible (only the Beverly story comes close, as her conversation with the captain is kind of ridiculous), there's no risk. The characters are all where they need to be, my favorite doctor is back, and the show feels like it's ready to take that next step. It knows the way. It just needs a little push."
Grade: B
Zack Handlen (AV Club)
Full review:
https://www.avclub.com/star-trek-the-next-generation-evolution-the-ensign-1798165573
KIRSTEN BEYER:
"And Joe [Menosky] was a trip. I love that man so much. And his episodes have always been among my most favorite of all Star Trek episodes. And we would be sitting there and talking about an idea or whatever and he'd be like, "Hey, you know what could happen?" and he'd throw it out there and I'd be like, "Yeah, you did that in season 4, episode whatever of The Next Generation." He's like, "I did?" I'm like, "Do you ever watch your own shows?" - "What are you f'n talking about?" - "Yes, you did."
So, here's what I realized very very quickly. I knew everything there's to know about Star Trek. And if I didn't know it, I knew where to go find it very, very quickly. Like, by that I mean, I had written a million plus words of Star Trek at that point. Like I know what color the phasers are, like you know just ... this is all just living rent free in my head.
Very few, very few of the people in that room, nobody in that room, I don't think even Brian [Fuller] - although Brian was probably the closest - knew Star Trek the way I knew it. But the thing is I also know something else about Star Trek that is very difficult to quantify which is the:
"how do you make an idea a Star Trek story, what is the Star Trek version of that thing."
What is the feeling that this is supposed to evoke in the person who's experiencing the story and it is a very specific Star Trek thing and I know it. It's like pornography. I know it when I see it, right?
But I also was very clear that I didn't know jack sh*t about how television was made. [...] And my feeling was, well, I could be upset about this and I could be frustrated about this and I could like force myself to be like - or I could close my mouth and open my ears and f'n learn. And that's what I did. [...]
10 years later, I'm the only person who was there at the beginning that's still here. So, you know, I'm doing something right."
Source:
SyFy Sistas Inc. on YouTube
Soul of the Story S3 Ep.1 | Inside the Creative World of Kirsten Beyer
Host: Derek Tyler Attico
Link:
https://youtu.be/HnDFMfCZ9xE?si=NLTujwBcaYbq_neg
Time-stamp:
37:30 min
Daniel Bibby (WinterIsComing.net):
"I feel like I'm in the rare minority that has found something to enjoy in every modern Star Trek show. While I understand that the Kurtzman era has been incredibly divisive, I think it's been more good than it has bad. While shows like Discovery and Starfleet Academy fall near the bottom of my list, there were still episodes, storylines, and character moments that made their production more than worthwhile. That said, they do feel the least like the franchise's classic era, so I get why long-standing Trekkies don't particularly gravitate toward these shows.
Weir would appear to be of a similar train of thought to me in this respect. At the very least, these ultra-modernized Star Trek shows don't make his top two. Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks are SOLID choices for those spots, though. Both capture the spirit of the older Star Trek shows perfectly, while adding their own spin to a formula that could easily feel outdated in the wrong hands.
Furthermore, Weir has sidestepped the mistake that I've seen many Trekkies make: avoiding Lower Decks just because it's animated. It's joyously chaotic, often comes dangerously close to breaking the fourth wall, and somehow also serves as an obvious love letter to Star Trek at large — the good and the bad. For those who haven't seen it, I encourage you to follow in Mr. Weir's footsteps. Lower Decks is just as good as the brilliant Strange New Worlds and fills a tastefully different space. [...]"
Full article:
SCREENRANT: "30 years ago, Star Trek: First Contact couldn't have anticipated the state of the world today — or maybe it did. The truly important thing Star Trek: First Contact offers, besides rip-roaring entertainment from Captain Picard and our favorite space heroes, is a message that's needed more than ever: "It will get better."
It won't be easy, but worthwhile progress never is. Watching Zephram Cochrane rise above his cynicism to embrace hope and usher in a better future is a beacon that we can, too. There aren't any Borg standing in our way, and Vulcans won't come from the skies to save us. We have to do it ourselves, and we can, together. [...]
Star Trek: First Contact is a gift that keeps on giving. It reminds us we, too, can achieve great things, and that we can be what Zephram Cochrane said of the Star Trek: The Next Generation crew: "Goddamn, you're heroic."
Full article:
JACK BEERS: "... and contrived resolutions. [...] It all starts with Alex Kurtzman's interpretation of Roddenberry's vision. When he accepted the Saturn Award recently, he said:
>"Science fiction is not really about the future, it’s about now. It’s the prism, the looking glass, the magnifying glass through which we examine ourselves, the state of humanity, who we are, what we’re capable of and where we’re going."
So, he basically interprets Trek, as well as science fiction as a whole, to be a large soap box to establish his current political views. How close is that to Roddenberry's vision? How do we know what Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek was? Because he wrote it down in two Star Trek writing guides.
https://x.com/waytoomuchbeer/status/2040814044144427152
Roddenberry’s actual vision, straight from the guides he personally wrote (TOS 1967 and TNG 1987), is crystal-clear and directly contradicts the “soapbox about now” reinterpretation that Kurtzman described in his Saturn Award speech. [...]
In Roddenberry's (as well as Rick Berman's) Trek, Diversity is celebrated quietly through action and integration, instead of preached or made the central jeopardy. Too many people under Kurtzman's Trek take the phrase in a very literal sense, taking it all the way it to a very illogical conclusion. Roddenberry used IDIC to say, “Look how beautiful the future is when we value all differences and combine them in infinite ways. (And buy these pins!)” Kurtzman’s version says, “Look at all these differences! Let’s make them the story, the conflict, AND the lecture so we can fix today’s problems.” That’s the distortion.
That distortion is then taught to the viewers. The small amount who became fans of the shows (or those who are involved in the shows) then blindly attempt to defend them against "haters" by using the "Star Trek was always woke" argument, since many of them can't tell the difference between progressivism and tired woke tropes.
[...]
The distortion of Roddenberry's vision doesn’t just stay on the screen; it gets taught to the viewers. The small handful of fans who actually stuck with these shows (and the people working on them) absorbed the new rulebook: Trek is now a soapbox first and story is now an afterthought. When the message becomes the main theme, you end up with useless characters who use trauma as a superpower: You end up with Mary-Sues and Gary-Sues.
The pattern spans the Kurtzman era: Discovery turned Michael Burnham into a messianic figure. They had a Kelpian whose emotions destroyed the Federation in an event called "The Burn" (can we get a recent Trek writer to please apologize for the burn?). Picard spent whole seasons reliving past traumas that should have been long behind him. I don't know what Section 31 was trying to do with their characters. Starfleet Academy leaned hard into all that coming-of-age crap. None of which follow the rules in Roddenberry's writer guides. He banned “long philosophical exchanges” and “essays, however brilliant”, preferring fast-paced action-adventure without gruesome violence. He wanted stories about believable people in jeopardy.
The ugly long-term effect of this all is that: Weak writing teaches weak thinking. Classic Trek modeled proper debate with Spock and McCoy going at it with logic and humanism. NuTrek gives us emotional outbursts, moral absolutes, and contrived resolutions. So, the fans who defend these shows online mirror exactly what they see on TV: rude pile-ons, hypocritical accusations of bigotry, and zero interest in honest argument. They thrive on the divisiveness because that’s what the show itself celebrates, despite its constant squawk of inclusivity.
They preach it until they come up against an idea they disagree with and instead of trying to have a discussion about it, they manufacture "gotcha"/"mic drop" comments that don't really prove anything. They don’t have strong argument skills because the show never showed them how to have one. Instead of learning IDIC as a form of harmonious strength, they learned it as a shield to swing at anyone who dares criticize their writing or distorted message.
[...]
From day one, Kurtzman Trek bet big on alienation. They changed the aesthetics (lens flares, darker-grittier tones, Klingorcs). They swapped thoughtful dialogue for modern quippy lines that sounded like they belonged on the CW. Worst of all, some creatives and actors publicly framed any criticism as bigotry or gatekeeping, with Robert Picardo being the latest to attack fans over the failing franchise. Legacy fans who wanted competent storytelling, optimistic exploration, and respect for canon got labeled “toxic”, "trolls" or told they were standing in the way of progress.
[...]
When you reject the people who reliably show up and bet everything on an audience that doesn’t exist, you don’t expand the franchise. You shrink it. You end up with a devalued, divisive, and disconnected franchise that celebrated its 60th anniversary with cancellations and the very real possibility that Alex Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout is finally on the way out.
Kurtzman got rid of what made Trek unique. He jettisoned the realism, the subtlety, and the idea of telling a good story first in preference of creating a series of mediocre shows that offered no insight and no wisdom, because they replaced the deep-thinking philosophical concepts the show once championed, with sophistry.
It’s time for Kurtzman Trek to go and for Star Trek to go back to what actually worked for decades."
Jack Beers
Full article: