• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How do you feel about Majel Barrett?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether it was Alexander, Odo, or whoever, she was capable of seeing the best in the people she focused on.

There was something Star Trek-ish about that.

It takes a Trekkie who 'gets it' to actually recognize that. Thank you for articulating this.

As much as Luxwana is a purposefully-slightly-annoying (for both Picard/crew and audience alike) character, she (Majel/Luxwana) is of such beautiful, natural, positive energy.
 
And please stop the "Oh they're Hollywood, so we shouldn't expect them to be decent people with any kind of moral code". That's a f'n cop out and part of the reason why celebrities are allowed to get away with so much shit normal people could never pull.
To begin with, no one here said that. Second, other people's marriages are none of your business, period.

Oh goody the "It's none of your business" line. So using that brilliant logic majel Barrett should have never ended up with Roddenberry in the first place. Was it her business to decide that she should become the mistress to a married man with young children? Apparently she thought so. And it wasn't like the marriage was basically over, Gene and majel took great pains to hide it from his wife.

And please spare me the "If she hadn't taken the opportunity someone else would of" Crapola. If someone asks you to rob a bank for millions and you agree to do it and get caught the reason "well if I hadnt agreed to it someone else would have done it for all that money " isn't going to cut a lot of ice at your trial.

Majel Barrett made it her business to be involved in gene roddenberry's marriage, apparently unconcerned about how badly it might hurt his wife or children, but apparently that's kosher with you.

However my raising points about this kind of behavior of two dead people who will never read this is some kind of total violation of their privacy and the sanctity of marriage.

What color is the sky in your world.
 
Second, other people's marriages are none of your business, period.
However my raising points about this kind of behavior of two dead people who will never read this is some kind of total violation of their privacy and the sanctity of marriage.
No, it simply means that other people's marriages - ANY other people's marriages - are none of your business. What part of that statement do you fail to understand? Do you feel that you are somehow blessed with the right to insert yourself, uninvited, into the private lives of other people? Try that off-line and let me know how far you get. :lol:
 
Second, other people's marriages are none of your business, period.
However my raising points about this kind of behavior of two dead people who will never read this is some kind of total violation of their privacy and the sanctity of marriage.
No, it simply means that other people's marriages - ANY other people's marriages - are none of your business. What part of that statement do you fail to understand? Do you feel that you are somehow blessed with the right to insert yourself, uninvited, into the private lives of other people? Try that off-line and let me know how far you get. :lol:
I have opinions about lots of things that, really, are none of my business. I sometimes even express them. I still have the right to have and even express opinions, even when others think the subject matter should be none of my business.
 
And please stop the "Oh they're Hollywood, so we shouldn't expect them to be decent people with any kind of moral code". That's a f'n cop out and part of the reason why celebrities are allowed to get away with so much shit normal people could never pull.
To begin with, no one here said that. Second, other people's marriages are none of your business, period.

Oh goody the "It's none of your business" line. So using that brilliant logic majel Barrett should have never ended up with Roddenberry in the first place. Was it her business to decide that she should become the mistress to a married man with young children? Apparently she thought so. And it wasn't like the marriage was basically over, Gene and majel took great pains to hide it from his wife.

And please spare me the "If she hadn't taken the opportunity someone else would of" Crapola. If someone asks you to rob a bank for millions and you agree to do it and get caught the reason "well if I hadnt agreed to it someone else would have done it for all that money " isn't going to cut a lot of ice at your trial.

Majel Barrett made it her business to be involved in gene roddenberry's marriage, apparently unconcerned about how badly it might hurt his wife or children, but apparently that's kosher with you.

However my raising points about this kind of behavior of two dead people who will never read this is some kind of total violation of their privacy and the sanctity of marriage.

What color is the sky in your world.

Don't take this the wrong way since, overall, I really like you and your contributions to the forum.

Having said that, you would be wise to remember Star Trek's famous IDIC.

What works for you doesn't necessarily mean that's necessarily so with other people.

We don't know for sure how Majel felt about Gene's lifestyle. All we know is that she stuck with him and was fiercely loyal to Gene, his vision and to Star Trek even after Gene died.

Even if you disagree with Gene's lifestyle particularly regarding having affairs, Gene said he never made any commitment to Majel regarding his sexual habits.

All we have to go on is Majel's attitude about Gene and Star Trek. If she felt slighted, I doubt she would've continued to be such a vocal spokesperson for Gene and his vision.
 
Really, it doesn't matter.

Majel was a competent actress. No more, no less. If she'd never met GR, who knows where her career might have gone, or not?

As for Gene, I think he is put on much too high a pedestal. No one could ever live up to that. At the end of the day, he was a decent writer. Out of all his ideas and concepts, one of them caught on and he capitalized on it.

But from everything I've read about his personal life he was a money grubbing skirt chasing horndog. Just like most of Hollywood.

That doesn't make him a bad guy, just human. Imperfect.

Maybe that's what he was trying to reconcile with TNG.
 
However my raising points about this kind of behavior of two dead people who will never read this is some kind of total violation of their privacy and the sanctity of marriage.
No, it simply means that other people's marriages - ANY other people's marriages - are none of your business. What part of that statement do you fail to understand? Do you feel that you are somehow blessed with the right to insert yourself, uninvited, into the private lives of other people? Try that off-line and let me know how far you get. :lol:
I have opinions about lots of things that, really, are none of my business. I sometimes even express them. I still have the right to have and even express opinions, even when others think the subject matter should be none of my business.
True, but MY opinions are better. ;)
 
I have enormous respect for her due to her guest appearance on Babylon 5 as a gesture of solidarity at a time when Trek executives were pressuring local TV stations not to show B5 if they wanted to be allowed to show DS9.
 
Were Paramount Television executives really pressuring stations that showed Star Trek: Deep Space Nine not to show Babylon 5? What's the source on that claim?
 
IIRC, though looking now I can't find proof.

Then it never happened.

Except that everything I can find refers to her desire to mend fences, without any specifics as to what/why. I'm confident the details are out there somewhere. I'll keep looking.

[edit] May have read it in the Babylon 5 official trade publication, but I can only find two of my hard copy issues. Anyone know if there is an online database?

[edit]
This is a good quote, but not proof:

Majel Barrett said:
Despite all the nonsense I've heard, they don't conflict. There's room enough for `B5,' `DS9,' `Voyager' and all the other sci-fi shows that are on right now.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ek-episode-majel-barrett#sthash.is1XHQwZ.dpuf
 
Last edited:
This is a good quote, but not proof:

Majel Barrett said:
Despite all the nonsense I've heard, they don't conflict. There's room enough for `B5,' `DS9,' `Voyager' and all the other sci-fi shows that are on right now.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ek-episode-majel-barrett#sthash.is1XHQwZ.dpuf

That's proof of the rivalry that existed between the two shows, largely fueled (in my estimation) by J. Michael Straczynski, but hardly proof of what you described previously regarding Paramount Television.
 
I loved her as Lwaxana. She was particularly beautiful and wonderful with Odo. FAR more interesting than her daughter :lol: I don't know how people can watch her in that role and say she was a poor actor, sure Nurse Chapel was basically nothing and Number 1 was even more nothing but years later as Lwaxana she shone.

And let's not forget her biggest role, the voice of the ship's computer.

:techman:

Well said...
 
This is a good quote, but not proof:

Majel Barrett said:
Despite all the nonsense I've heard, they don't conflict. There's room enough for `B5,' `DS9,' `Voyager' and all the other sci-fi shows that are on right now.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ek-episode-majel-barrett#sthash.is1XHQwZ.dpuf

That's proof of the rivalry that existed between the two shows, largely fueled (in my estimation) by J. Michael Straczynski, but hardly proof of what you described previously regarding Paramount Television.

From your link:
Subject: DS9 vs B5 comments
From: strac...@genie.geis.com
Date: 1995/06/18
Message-ID: <199506190254...@relay1.geis.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
[More Headers]


The producers of ST have had plenty to say about B5 in various
places,
so why should I be silent just because it bugs *you*? Are you
bothered
by
Paramount getting Stephen Furst bumped off a Paramount talk show to
help
keep him from discussing B5? By Paramount leaning on a primarily ST
director to get him to back out of agreeing to direct a B5 episode? By
the accounts we've received of stations being told that they could have
Voyager only if they dropped B5?
By conversations directly related to
me
by convention managers at Creation and elsewhere that Paramount
was
FURIOUS that B5 people were being invited to these things?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.tv.star-trek.ds9/I1V42DVcVyU

Which says it was Voyager, not Deep Space Nine, that they threatened to deny stations that ran B5. So at least I'm not crazy or making it up. Just got a detail wrong. Still not real proof of course.
 
Good catch. Still, given the intense animosity Straczysnki expresses in that post (the list of"similarities," which you didn't quote, are particularly flimsy), and the hedging he does on this point ("the accounts we've received")...well, let's just say I wouldn't put it in a book without some strong qualification.
 
Good catch. Still, given the intense animosity Straczysnki expresses in that post (the list of"similarities," which you didn't quote, are particularly flimsy), and the hedging he does on this point ("the accounts we've received")...well, let's just say I wouldn't put it in a book without some strong qualification.

No. Certainly not substantiated, but I was seriously starting to think I hadn't actually read it, like it was a dream I had or something. Funny that the link you provided answered the question (at least for myself) when a day of google-fu could not. I was getting ready to dig my old issues of the Babylon 5 magazine out of storage and start re-reading them front to back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top