Chaos on the Bridge

"Chaos on the Bridge" has a story worth telling (the creative staff disorder during "The Next Generation"'s nascent years), but it suffers from that reality TV editing that ruins everything. You know the kind: the rapid cuts and frenetic pacing, like the producer (or Shatner in this case) has a deathly fear of slowing down. It's the last thing a Star Trek documentary needs. I know it's not comprehensive, but even at a mere 60 minutes, surely there's some room to let the thing breathe.

That said, there's enough here to entertain even the ardent TNG fan. I was surprised to learn that Mitchell Ryan and Yaphet Kotto were among those actors considered for Captain of the Enterprise for Paramount's glitzy new Star Trek series. And that the revolving door creative staff was due to a leadership vacuum.

I genuinely like the spirit of this thing, and would love to see someone tackle a broader documentary down the road (one that covers the series as a whole). Shatner's onto something here, if he wants to shed light on Star Trek shows.

Just stop cutting it like a reality show.

6/10

To the Trek fan, I found this a fun story and interesting bit of history that was well worth watching. It feels rushed in parts, glossed over in others and one-sided, but overall, a fun retelling. I think everyone knows that the behind the scenes making of TV isn't always pretty. Some of the underbelly is shown and some grievances are aired, but there's enough Trek in this little film to keep the Trekie interested. An entertaining hour I thought. 8 stars, possibly 8.5

I really enjoy having Shatner lead the documentaries for the development of star trek. My only wish is that they had delved into the writers issues developing TNG more... It just, maybe in hind sight, appears obvious to me that the creation of story conflict is easy between the federation values and of its characters against an antagonist. I think there is more to the story of the first two seasons of TNG than they could have dug into..

I'm happy this documentary was made. The interviews with the contributing cast and etc were very I intriguing as both a trekkie and an outsider interested in TV or movie production.

We all love a good gossip fest, and William Shatner's expose of the troubles dogging the early years of Star Trek TNG ('The Next Generation) makes for plenty of entertainment.

This show is pretty lightweight and doesn't take itself too seriously, which is certainly down to Shatner's own direction and presentation. I found it enlightening to watch this immediately after the 50th anniversary documentary that paints such an uncritical view of the Star Trek universe.

If you believe the actor who played Captain Kirk in the original series might have some agenda at work in denigrating TNG, that may be true, but Shatner plays it fair and even-handed when it comes to doling out blame. And it's not as if the film is a work of fiction. There are plenty of people willing to appear on film shoveling the dirt, including Sir Patrick Stewart himself.

Shatner's film is amusing and fascinating more for casting the human condition in sharp relief rather than telling us anything we didn't already know about the TNG series itself. It's likely to affront some TNG fans, but if you accept that the human beings working on the series are more fallible than the crew of Enterprise D, you will likely appreciate and enjoy this minor gem.

I was very surprised when I saw "Chaos on the Bridge". After all, for decades there has been a mystical sort of image of Gene Roddenberry as an avuncular sort of guru whose vision was THE basis for everything great about "Star Trek". Well, here this is NOT the sort of guy you hear about...that's for sure. It's a shame the guy is dead, as I'd love to see his reactions to so much hostility. But, according to the documentary, everything that was wrong with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was due to Roddenberry and his unwillingness to create any sort of tension within the show. Instead, he insisted on a perfect, Utopian future where all the humans got along and loved each other....which is just fine except it created a rather bland package. Almost no one defended this apart, at times, aside from Maurice Hurley--who alternated between saying how much he hated Roddenberry but how he tried to stay loyal to his image. Some were nice but insisted Roddenberry was a poor addition to the show but others were quite blunt. I was frankly quite shocked to hear all this. While I could see that the show VASTLY improved in the later seasons, why was something I'd never heard anyone talk about before or so candidly.

Overall, this is very revealing and well made. However, it did have one problem--the pace was too quick and it seems stretching it out to 90 minutes or so would have made the film a bit stronger...though it still is very well done and I urge Trek fans to see it with an open mind.