Trek Survivor wrote:
He was a flawed human being that often did questionable and objectionable things; he cheated on both wives, took credit for other people's work etc. But it riles me when people seem to ignore or intentionally disregard the contribution he made to Trek. It was MORE than "just the initial idea"; By all means let's burst the myth and acknowledge others' contributions, but I just feel the demonisation of Roddenberry has become something ludicrous within fandom.
I don't think people are forgetting his considerable contributions. I think folks, through the back-and-forth of these threads, are striving to find and deal with the truth after decades of lies and misrepresentations with the ultimate goal of giving all concerned their rightful due.
Is there some harshness to it? Yes, however, it is (IMO) a natural and measured backlash from feeling needlessly and unrepentantly lied to as well as the injury done to many innocent people and entities.
When people start feeling someone willfully misrepresented things far more often then they were open and honest, well, the betrayal of trust becomes hurtful.
Roddenberry villified NBC who in reality were more than fair to him by allowing him to make two pilots when the norm was one. They gave him three seasons despite poor ratings (wherein he abandoned ship, thereby, sabotaging the third season). He was routinely dishonorable in his dealings with others (under a variety of circumstances). So then the question becomes to what extent does the "good" outweigh or overshadow the "bad" (or vice-a-versa")? Where does one balance excusing GR's negatives while praising his positives?