Would Roddenberry have given Star Trek robots if he could've?

[DrNewGod]

Discovery has taken some hate for the robot drones deployed in abundance. Personally, I don't mind them. It would make sense that Star Fleet wouldn't want to waste highly trained astronauts' time on welding and bolt torquing.

Still, I get the point that we've never seen anything like that in any ST before. The closest - assuming Data doesn't count - has been TNG and it's successors use of probes. So, while nothing we've seen before that I'm aware of strictly rules out drones having been there all along, sweeping floors off camera and whatnot, it does stretch credulity. For example, why wouldn't Away Teams send drone down first in cases like "Arsenal of Freedom?"

At the same time, way back in 1960-odd, Gene Roddenberry was a dude on a budget. Published notes suggest he was looking at what the future might be (most notably, communicators), do drudge-work robots seem unlikely? At the same time, he was trying to sell a studio on a weekly sci-fi movie whilst his competition was offerings like Mission: Impossible and Bonanza. Might there have been a notepad somewhere with a line crossed thru the term "robot mechanics," followed by "too much $$$?"

Roddenberry is quoted as having wistfully marveled at the kind of TOS S1 he could have offered with TMP's budget. I suppose one of the reasons the Disc drones don't bug me is I can see that they'd have had role if The Great Bird Of The Galaxy had funding enough for them.

[From The Shadows]

I doubt he'd like the reboot or the current TV show. He was very particular. He didn't even want Deep Space Nine or anything like a Kira which was heavy on religion and he prefered the general spiritualism like with the Vulcans , Klingons etc. He wouldn't like the idea of a religious war. let alone it being involved in anyone's decision making. I admit I could not really understand this because TNG partly had already what DS9 had just not has face punching. So a outward religious character wouldn't be something he could get behind as well as what he would perceive as negativity. He preferred an more aligorical approach.

[DrNewGod]

I doubt he'd like the reboot or the current TV show. He was very particular. He didn't even want Deep Space Nine or anything like a Kira which was heavy on religion and he prefered the general spiritualism like with the Vulcans , Klingons etc. He wouldn't like the idea of a religious war. let alone it being involved in anyone's decision making. I admit I could not really understand this because TNG partly had already what DS9 had just not has face punching. So a outward religious character wouldn't be something he could get behind as well as what he would perceive as negativity. He preferred an more aligorical approach.

Okay. From that I distill Roddenberry's Spectre saying "stick to my vision." Does that mean drones are out of bounds?

[Cyke]

I doubt he'd like the reboot or the current TV show. He was very particular. He didn't even want Deep Space Nine or anything like a Kira which was heavy on religion and he prefered the general spiritualism like with the Vulcans , Klingons etc. He wouldn't like the idea of a religious war. let alone it being involved in anyone's decision making. I admit I could not really understand this because TNG partly had already what DS9 had just not has face punching. So a outward religious character wouldn't be something he could get behind as well as what he would perceive as negativity. He preferred an more aligorical approach.

Whether or not Roddenberrry would like current Trek wasn't really the question though, it was about the concept of robots and drones. How you derived DS9's use of religion from that is out of nowhere, frankly.

Back to the topic, I don't see why Roddenberry wouldn't. He tried to incorporate TOS with the latest in scientific knowledge, such as the ability to bend space for FTL speeds and the need for time manipulation for relativity. He knew the dangers of simple specks of space dust in basic space travel. He knew lasers -- then a relatively new but already often used concept -- would be woefully outdated by the setting. He did his research, and in areas of weakness, he consulted authors and scientists.

With that said, NASA was already using drones in the 60s, they just weren't called drones back then. But unmanned and remote controlled/computer guided craft were already in heavy use, they played roles in TOS episodes, and 1960s probes (which are essentially drones in definition) were shown in The Cage. Plus, probes were standard gear on the Enterprise-D. On the other hand, he liked the concept of the Borg and what they represented the ultimate downside to advanced technology, a concept which was sometimes fleshed out in TOS but shown more prominently in other fiction as the years went by.

Roddenberry may have been stringent about the philosophical or humanistic side of Trek, but he was also a futurist. If something new in science and technology came along, he wouldn't try to make it adapt to his views (that's such a narrow thing for a futurist to do), but instead try to incorporate it, and maybe even imagine improvements to it, into the the show. For example, the term "wormhole" was never used in TOS and almost never used in sci-fi in general, but he used it -- concept and term -- in TMP, which popularized its use in TV/Film sci-fi. How ever stubbornly he held to his views on philosophy and society, it was the opposite approach with science and technology.

Would Roddenberry have approved modern Trek's use of drones if he were alive today? He'd likely marvel at their specificity (engineering, medical, tactical, etc) and even try to put his own spin on them, too. It would be no different than phasers, transporters, warp drive, or tricorders to him. Heck, when the Voyager probes were launched in the 1970s, they were long projected to leave the solar system -- Roddenberry expanded that concept in order to have 70s-style technology return in frightening fashion to 23rd century heroes in TMP.

[sunofdarkchild]

TOS had androids in several episodes and robots in others. The Federation always used probes. So I don't think he'd have a problem with having that concept expanded if the budget allowed for it.

There was a difference between Roddenberry in the TOS era and the TNG era. In TOS he seemed to have no problem depicting humans as flawed, prejudiced, seeking revenge, ect. Balance of Terror had a bridge officer who couldn't let go of his hatred for the Romulans over a war that happened 100 years earlier and had the logical Spock arguing for violence while the motional McCoy was the one objecting. There were 3 episodes about Kirk wanting revenge, Arena, Obsession, and The Conscience of the King. You wouldn't get stories like that with TNG while Roddenberry was in charge. Humanity was too 'evolved' for that.

[Frobisher]

I think drones make an enormous amount of sense for external hull space work when you have a powerful ship computer that can coordinate it all. The interesting storytelling potential around this might be "why endanger a human crew at all when you could replace them with drones" (because the work is about outreach/elevating humankind, not war), and "if the ship's computer is so smart, is it there as a willing partner of the crew, or is it essentially a slave?".

[AndrewCrossett]

In the 1960's, attempts to portray robots were a major reason why science fiction was still seen as kid stuff, even though SF literature was in its golden age with Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Bradbury, etc. all in their primes. On Star Trek they had to use salt shakers to represent medical tricorders. Trying to do robots would have turned the show into Lost in Space, which is not what he wanted. The exception would be fully humanoid robots like Harry Mudd's crew or, later, Data.

We never really saw any domestic staff on TOS. Food came from replicators, so no kitchen staff. I assume by the 23rd century they had invented the Roomba, so no cleaning staff. (Crew probably had to clean their own bathrooms and do their own laundry... this is the military, after all, not a country club.) Probably 99% of the work needing to be done was skilled work, so done by crew members rather than drones. And when you're billions of miles from anywhere in deep space, you don't want to be reliant on machines that can break, or malfunction, or get hacked.

Roddenberry had Spock instead of a robot... someone with the logic and efficiency of a robot but with an independent mind that would allow for character growth.

[DrNewGod]

In the 1960's, attempts to portray robots were a major reason why science fiction was still seen as kid stuff, even though SF literature was in its golden age with Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Bradbury, etc. all in their primes. On Star Trek they had to use salt shakers to represent medical tricorders. Trying to do robots would have turned the show into Lost in Space, which is not what he wanted...

That's a good point. I can see him not wanting to do robots unless he thought they could visually pull it off.

[Anthony W]

Discovery has taken some hate for the robot drones deployed in abundance. Personally, I don't mind them. It would make sense that Star Fleet wouldn't want to waste highly trained astronauts' time on welding and bolt torquing

My problem with them is that their inclusion has nothing to do with the reasons you are listing and everything to do with the fact that they just wanted droids of their own. It goes back to the fact that Kurtzman is not a Trek fan but a Star Wars fan. Calling them drones is misleading at best and outright denial at worse.

Look at the design. It's obvious it's meant to be an "actor" in its own right. The kind of drone you are describing above can't be put in the SHORT TREK: “Ephraim and Dot”.

But a droid can. They wanted their own R2 units and it's blatantly obvious.

Still, I get the point that we've never seen anything like that in any ST before. The closest - assuming Data doesn't count - has been TNG and it's successors use of probes. So, while nothing we've seen before that I'm aware of strictly rules out drones having been there all along, sweeping floors off camera and whatnot, it does stretch credulity. For example, why wouldn't Away Teams send drone down first in cases like "Arsenal of Freedom?"

I assure you the current team didn't dive that deep, they just wanted droids like the kind in Star Wars, repair is the fig leaf that they are trying to use to cover this up. The really sad thing is this could have worked if they could have at least tried for a less intrusive design. They could have tried for something that wouldn't look sooo out of place...but nah.

At the same time, way back in 1960-odd, Gene Roddenberry was a dude on a budget. Published notes suggest he was looking at what the future might be (most notably, communicators), do drudge-work robots seem unlikely? At the same time, he was trying to sell a studio on a weekly sci-fi movie whilst his competition was offerings like Mission: Impossible and Bonanza. Might there have been a notepad somewhere with a line crossed thru the term "robot mechanics," followed by "too much $$$?"

Roddenberry is quoted as having wistfully marveled at the kind of TOS S1 he could have offered with TMP's budget. I suppose one of the reasons the Disc drones don't bug me is I can see that they'd have had role if The Great Bird Of The Galaxy had funding enough for them.

See my first response to the whole drone/droid thing. It's just hit me. Why didn't Admiral Cornwall just summon a repair droid to activate the warhead instead of sacrificing herself?

[WebLurker]

In the original show, automated computer technology and AI is often treated with some mistrust (for example, "The Ultimate Computer"), so the '60s era seems dodgy for drones. After, maybe. I mean, in reality, the different shows have always reflected the opinions of technology at the time of their production, and currently, drones are becoming a part of life.

[Osiris-Rex]

I doubt he'd like the reboot or the current TV show. He was very particular. He didn't even want Deep Space Nine or anything like a Kira which was heavy on religion and he prefered the general spiritualism like with the Vulcans , Klingons etc. He wouldn't like the idea of a religious war. let alone it being involved in anyone's decision making. I admit I could not really understand this because TNG partly had already what DS9 had just not has face punching. So a outward religious character wouldn't be something he could get behind as well as what he would perceive as negativity. He preferred an more aligorical approach.

This is one of those cases where something seems to be so despised by certain groups that they totally misunderstood the question. The question was whether there should be robots i.e. mechanical humanoids in Star Trek.
Not reboots i.e. whether Star Trek should have been started over.

[DrNewGod]

In the original show, automated computer technology and AI is often treated with some mistrust (for example, "The Ultimate Computer"), so the '60s era seems dodgy for drones. After, maybe. I mean, in reality, the different shows have always reflected the opinions of technology at the time of their production, and currently, drones are becoming a part of life.

This is true, particularly your comment about the times in which the shows were made shaping attitudes within the shows. That said, even TOS was more suspicious of AI (Landru, Nomad, your afore-mentioned Dyson's computer) than automation per se, automated probes mentioned as having done early mapping work. I guess I see a difference between the repair drones in Disc and artifacts with agency like Ruk.

[Moon Ronin]

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan so my knowledge here is limited after Deep Space 9. As for AI and "mechanical humanoids" didn't Roddenberry create Data? And the Idea was for him to be unique and progress to being more human as the series progressed. And in Voyager, which I don't thank Roddenberry wrote, had a doctor that was basically AI.

[DrNewGod]

My problem with them is that their inclusion has nothing to do with the reasons you are listing and everything to do with the fact that they just wanted droids of their own. It goes back to the fact that Kurtzman is not a Trek fan but a Star Wars fan. Calling them drones is misleading at best and outright denial at worse.

Look at the design. It's obvious it's meant to be an "actor" in its own right. The kind of drone you are describing above can't be put in the SHORT TREK: “Ephraim and Dot”.

But a droid can. They wanted their own R2 units and it's blatantly obvious.



I assure you the current team didn't dive that deep, they just wanted droids like the kind in Star Wars, repair is the fig leaf that they are trying to use to cover this up. The really sad thing is this could have worked if they could have at least tried for a less intrusive design. They could have tried for something that wouldn't look sooo out of place...but nah.



See my first response to the whole drone/droid thing. It's just hit me. Why didn't Admiral Cornwall just summon a repair droid to activate the warhead instead of sacrificing herself?

I can see your point about it looking too SW.

[From The Shadows]

Okay. From that I distill Roddenberry's Spectre saying "stick to my vision." Does that mean drones are out of bounds?

No, that means I thought you said Reboot and not Robot.

Whether or not Roddenberrry would like current Trek wasn't really the question though, it was about the concept of robots and drones. How you derived DS9's use of religion from that is out of nowhere, frankly.

It was a mistake but I find the whole confusion hilarious. Nothing personal at all.