Yup, you pretty much read my mind there. Generations was rushed, came too fast, and it showed. All Good Things would have made for a better movie if they'd fleshed it out and fixed up a few of the plotholes.DavidBanner wrote:
I agree that Berman and company should have let it go long before ENTERPRISE. I personally think they could have called it after that last season of TNG, which was mostly filled with some really, really awful episodes. (I can count on one hand the decent eps in that last season, and I don't think its Emmy nomination absolves it - that nomination was actually for the whole series, since it had been ignored for years.) The best thing they could have done at that point would have been to NOT make GENERATIONS. A few years off to build up demand would have been a good idea. Doing a movie with that cast right after the series ended really felt like they were trying to cash in as quick as they could. I also think they needed to bring back the really good writers, like Gerrold and Fontana, who really understood the material. In retrospect, it would have worked to have turned the show over to Ron Moore, but Berman couldn't stand him. (And in honesty, he admits today that he was out of gas during that 7th season of TNG). I agree that a bunch of eps in the 5th season really dragged (too many "Child of the Week/Ship in Danger" stories to the point that you could predict the formula by the first commercial), and that the 6th season had a lot of clunkers in the first part of the year. But the 6th season did have several of my favorite eps, particularly "Chain of Command", "Ship in a Bottle" and "Frame of Mind".
5-7th season still had good episodes in them but the drop off, as I call it, was unmistakeable and certainly is undeniable with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.
DS9 and Voyager had their share of good episodes, particularly DS9 until that last season and the way they ended DS9 with the super rushed, deus ex machina everything is peachy ending. Those character deserved better and the show was hurt when Jadzia was killed off.
Enterprise just should never have happened.
I've listend to it on disc and it does have its moments but the drop off by Goldsmith's standards for a Star Trek film is stiking and disturbing to me.
I actually liked Goldsmith's score for NEMESIS. It actually felt like one of the original series scores - particularly the scene where they encounter Shinzon's vessel for the first time.
Maybe that's the case but all I know the end result looked, felt like, and basically had the effect of killing Trek and the tone and approach on that movie and everything about it really made suspect that it was deliberate even though you may be right and it wasn't.
I don't think NEMESIS was intended to kill off the golden goose. They were clearly trying to find some new blood, given how many hundreds of hours of episodes they had already done between four series at that point. Bringing in John Logan and Stuart Baird was initially thought to be a bold move toward shaking things up, particularly since INSURRECTION was properly received as a feature-length episode of TNG.
For a time I think there was just oversaturation of Trek. TNG was still going on and then DS9 starts up and overlaps early with the 6th season. Then they do that overlap and roll off again with Voyager.
I agree that there is definitely more interest in TREK now due to the new film, and also due to the fact that there hasn't been anything new with TREK since ENTERPRISE bit the dust four years ago. (And I don't count the remastering of the original series as a new development)
They didn't do themselves any favors if they didn't want people to get burned out or bored or whatever you want to call it, that's for sure.
I easily take your word for it.
My sourcing for my thoughts here come from a variety of places. I grew up watching the original series and then the movies. My father was friends and worked with Bob Justman on other TV shows. (Justman signed my copy of his book with Solow and showed me some charts he had made about the production of the original series. He had kept track of the dates each ep was outlined, written, filmed, posted and aired, with notes about whether things were on time or late, whether things were on budget or over, and why. I remember that the ep "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" went over due to not having a completed script when they started filming - apparently Roddenberry had to completely rebuild Robert Bloch's script...) I also worked for two months on the first season of VOYAGER in the spring of 1995, and then worked next door to VOYAGER and DS9 for a year from 1996 to 1997. (When they did the Tribbles episode of DS9, it went on FOREVER. You could tell because of the costumes and the beehive hairstyles for the women)
I'm happy to say I've read a good chunk of these but there are a few I've missed. It's also been years since I've read some of these so some retreading for me certainly would not be a waste.
But beyond that, I have also read many books about what went on in the making of these shows, and I recommend pretty much all of them if you want a complete picture from everyone's perspective:
The first two, and the most crucial are, of course:
The Making of Star Trek - Stephen Whitfield's book, written during the making of the original series with inset comments by Roddenberry
Inside Star Trek: The Real Story - Herb Solow and Bob Justman's book about what really went on during the production of the pilot episodes and the three years of the original series. Justman continues the story to acknowledge the problems that happened during TNG and the end of Roddenberry's life.
For some good material about the nuts and bolts of specific episodes, etc, I recommend:
The Trouble With Tribbles - David Gerrold's account of the writing and production of his script.
The City on the Edge of Forever - Harlan Ellison's lengthy account (rant) about the varous untrue things that have been said about him and the episode. (Of course, I don't believe he acknowledges that this script came in REALLY late, and even his protests about not being THAT far overbudget fall flat. All accounts show that his episode came in 66K over budget, which was a HUGE amount in 1966, and that was just to do a stripped down version of the original idea he'd presented.) That said, Ellison has a valid point that Roddenberry repeatedly tried to rewrite this history, and that there have been a lot of yahoos saying things about him who weren't there. And reading Ellison's original script is a revelation.
The World of Star Trek - David Gerrold's dissection of the original series and his many suggestions for improvement if another series were to be done. The key here is that his ideas form the backbone of what would become TNG, and I believe Gerrold thought he was going to be the head writer or "showrunner" when Roddenberry brought him in to write the TNG "bible" and used all his suggestions. When Roddenberry turned on him, Gerrold understandably went ballistic.
Captain's Logs - Edward Gross and Mark Altman's compilation of various articles and episode guides written about Trek include many direct quotes from the writers and directors who worked on the episodes, including some candid statements by Joe Pevney, Fred Frieberger, David Gerrold, Ralph Senensky and others. Gross and Altman's opinions about the episodes aside, these quotes help fill in some blanks and clarify things that even Justman and Solow don't address. (One example is that Justman insists that Bill Shatner didn't have any creative input in what was done on the show - that he just performed the script handed to him. And it's true that Shatner didn't write or direct any episodes. But Pevney describes regular "table rehearsals" on the set where Shatner and Nimoy would go through the scenes being filmed and insist on changes, to the point that Pevney refused to come back any more. Pevney described the situation as intolerable for a director trying to tell a story, when the leads of the show are essentially writing and directing the scene for you...) This compilation is also one of the first to acknowledge the extremely troubled production history of the first Trek film. The interview material with Hal Livingston is particuarly devastating.
For some interesting perspectives on the making of the series and the movies, I would of course recommend:
My Star Trek Memories, and My Star Trek Movie Memories - Shatner's ghostwritten memoirs (really done by Chris Kreski) include a lot of candid interview material with many of the creative people involved. It sounds very much like Shatner brought a tape recorder with him when talking to Justman, to Nimoy, to Bennett, to Meyer, etc.. If you just read the interview segments, you'll get a really vivid picture of what was happening, and if you bounce that off the Justman/Solow book, and the interviews in the Gross/Altman compilation, things get a lot clearer. To his credit, Shatner acknowledges that James Doohan refused to speak to him, and that Nichelle Nichols took him to task for his behavior during the series. He even includes a devastating quote from Bennett about him, where Bennett frankly tells him that he seems to always want to be the center, the quarterback, the wide receiver, and the head of the cheerleading squad in every scene. (It's interesting to note how things have now broken down again between Shatner and Takei...)
I Am Not Spock and I Am Spock - Leonard Nimoy provides his own perspective, without going through the prism of Shatner's interviews. His books are the only place where I found the admission that both Nimoy and Shatner campaigned to direct episodes of the original series (which of course was firmly denied). Of course, Nimoy skates around the fact that he did in fact insist on Spock being killed in the second film as a pre-requisite for his participation. Nimoy will tell you that he didn't do that, that he just felt it was an attractive offer by Bennett. But if you read these accounts carefully (and read Bennett's interview extracts), you'll see that Nimoy made clear he would not return for another Trek movie until he was told the character would be ended. On the other hand, Nimoy's account shows that his work on "A Woman Called Golda", part of his deal for agreeing to do Trek II, was not a picnic, since the director openly resented his being cast in the film by Bennett over the director's head.
Chekov's Enterprise - Walter Koenig's account of the making of the first Trek film is interesting, in that it's the only real fly-on-the-wall perspective we have of that production, from the time it was happening. If anything, it shows that Koenig was in the dark about most of what was happening, and was just happy to be there. But there's some good stuff in there about hijinks on the bridge, and the absolutely interminable wormhole scene.
For perspective on Gene Roddenberry, I strongly recommend all three of the following:
Creator - David Alexander's loving portrait of Roddenberry, which glosses over a lot of the difficult areas, but does include many Roddenberry letters and memos from the time of the series and the movies. And it gives Roddenberry's side of the dispute with Bennett (along with some fairly unhappy comments about the behavior of Nimoy and Shatner in the films), which presents Roddenberry as "choosing" to take the consultant title rather than produce any more. It acknowledges the difficulties of the first year of TNG, but says that Roddenberry was only trying to defend himself, etc.
Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek - Joel Engel's no-holds-barred machete attack on Roddenberry goes even father than Engel's flaying of Rod Serling in an earlier book. Engel's portrait is of a truly unpleasant man who did some good things and tried to take credit for all the good things everyone else did. Engel includes some really nasty material about Roddenberry's behavior during the making of the original series, the films, and TNG. Almost every quote used in the book is designed to deflate any complimentary thoughts one might have about Roddenberry, and if that isn't enough, Engel than editorializes in the same mode. On the other hand, if you take this book and stand it up against Alexander's book, you get a much fuller picture of the man. This book includes some pretty solid medical perspective of what was happening to Roddenberry during his only year on TNG, and includes various tidbits about how production was handled during both series. One surprising admission is that the script for "The Menagerie" (the envelope portion around Roddenberry's original "Cage" pilot ep) was actually written by John D.F. Black before he walked off the show. Roddenberry then did a rewrite on it and claimed sole credit. Black didn't present a case to the WGA, assuming that he would win his arbitration just by presenting his draft and Roddenberry's. Roddenberry won, and Black learned an unfortunate lesson.
Inside Trek - Susan Sackett's account of her affair with Roddenberry over at least fifteen years fills in a lot of blanks, and provides a clear picture of his decline during the 80s until his death. Sackett's portrait of herself and of Majel Barrett is similarly unflattering, but it presents an accurate picture of the making of TNG and the endgame around her final moments there. Her account of her "exit interview" with Rick Berman and her discussions with Michael Piller are quite chilly, and you can tell they are trying to usher her off the lot as fast as they can. Certain details of the making of TNG, like the naming of Deanna Troi after her, or the technical name of Geordi's VISOR are revealed here as coming from Sackett. (Of course, she tries to take credit for the basic idea for Star Trek III, which makes little sense, as it's clear this is what Nimoy and Bennett were planning to do anyway.) Sackett's account also does not include the fact that she received a considerable inheritance from Roddenberry after his death - she portrays that part of the story as though she was totally cut off. Finally, Sackett discusses the 25th Anniversary Star Trek book, for which she wrote the text while Roddenberry was ostensibly supervising it. (In reality, Roddenberry was completely infirm by this point) When the book was literally about to be printed, Nimoy intentionally blocked its production and took over the project himself. Sackett later realized that the published book was in fact using her material and had to pursue Paramount to be paid for her work. Sackett's book makes clear that Roddenberry's involvement with the movies after TMP was minimal (memos that they rarely followed), and that his involvement with TNG was also minimal after the first season, other than to watch episodes and give notes. (and even those notes were minimal, if anything.) Sackett's description of her reaction to an early 4th season episode is particularly illuminating.
When you put all three accounts together, you get a much more complete picture of the man, warts and all.
Yeah, I know about the headache but after a time you do start to get an overall "big picture" of what reality may have been like.
Finally, I would also advise listening to the various commentaries on the Trek films and series and watching the featurettes, albeit with a grain of salt. When you get past the self-congratulation, you get to some really interesting material. In the commentary for TMP, Stephen Collins describes the filming of the wormhole sequence (every shot had to be done four times - in 35mm normal speed, 35mm slow motion, 70mm normal speed and 70mm slow motion) as akin to a really bad root canal. In the featurettes about the making of the series, Nimoy admits that when they made the 2nd pilot, the budget was incredibly low, since they had spent so much money on the first pilot. And there's plenty of other stuff to find in there...
By wading through all this stuff, you eventually wind up with a very interesting picture of the human beings who made these shows. Or you wind up with a headache...
)