I'd say; absolutely not. The possibility for going extreme / overboard in one direction or another is too strong, IMO. You either make him a saint and give him too much credit for it all and put his "vision" on a pedestal, or you totally knock him down with real life, gray areas, and all the rumors ever associated with the man. Not sure there is a way to truly thread the needle on that one.
There's probably not a good enough story in something that's either hagiographic or an angry expose. And it's also just weird, in terms of a dramatic story, that he largely stepped away from his series after two years (and then after his revival film other people made more movies that he didn't like).
I think the most intresting story is in between "TOS" and "TNG." I mean this is where he in essence went from a guy with a huge amount of personal issues to basically seeing himself as a prophet all because of the fans. Plus you got the fact that his show was becoming a phenomonon while at the same time he couldn't even get another show on tv and then their is his big chance to rebound with the "TOS" movie and he blew it and then got a 3rd chance and finally got another success, though like the first it is kind of suspect as to how much credit he deserves for that success. Plus you got to figure in that the movie would also be something of a love story with Majel and frankly you would somehow have to get that crazy lawyer into the movie that we all have heard about who was rewritting scripts on "TNG." and so forth. Jason
The only people this would really attract would be trek fans, so instead why not a movie about the first pilot, which I would enjoy more than a Roddenberry centered story.
In addition to Roddenberry On Patrol and The Pilot, a script was written (possibly in development a couple years back) entitled To Boldly Go. No linger available online, but here's a review: http://scriptshadow.net/amateur-friday-to-boldly-go/
Sure there is. The Founder, starring Michael Keaton, did this wonderfully in its portrayal of Ray Kroc's role with McDonald's. Kor
It's the debates about how real people are portrayed onscreen that underscore why I avoid biopics like the plague. Deep down, I'm well aware that I'm not even close to getting the real story. This is nothing new, of course. When Fred Astaire died in 1987, his will contained a clause that no movie could be made about his life. To quote the man himself, "It is there because I have no particular desire to have my life misinterpreted, which it would be."
Seth Rogan writes, directs, and stars in "GIVE THEM THE BIRD", a comedy-biopic, as Gene Roddenberry, pot-smoking alcoholic who creates Star Trek by accident and is somehow later revered as a visionary. After being grossly offended that this film was made... I'd go see it. Maybe twice.
It seems were also getting PROFESSOR MARSTON AND THE WONDER WOMEN, a biopic of William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman. And, yes, judging from the trailer, the emphasis seems to be on his unconventional, polyamorous personal life.
Interesting. I have no idea how that would be enforceable, though. I suppose his estate could decline to cooperate and there might be issues with using his actual image, but dead public figures are fair game when it comes to biographies and even fiction. If somebody wants to make a movie about Astaire, there's no legal way to prevent it, regardless of what his will says. At most, his will could only prohibit any "authorized" biopics. Which is probably just as well. Politicians, statesmen, and other public figures shouldn't be able to dictate how they are remembered after they're gone . . . .
I thought about that, and wondered myself if that was even enforceable. Of course, no one's really made a movie about Astaire to my knowledge, at least one that wasn't a documentary.
I think it's a moot point. Astaire didn't have enough scandal in his life, so a movie about him just wouldn't sell these days. Kor
A documentary on Gene Roddenberry would be interesting to me, particularly his service during World War II. Everyone makes such a fuss over how much he liked women -- so what? I mean ... don't we all? Gene had The Brass ... you know? He was driven to succeed and eventually became Internationally Famous. And STAR TREK still feels the need to associate his name with it, to feel like it has any legitimacy. That Gene, he did alright. I'd really enjoy seeing a proper tribute made to the Man.
I think the issue with woman was the cheating on his wife and what I suspect we all think and that is the use of the, casting couch when it came to the show. Jason
I've never condoned the casting couch, where the actress was unwilling, but felt forced into going along with it. What's that even do for a Man's ego, trying to pull off a stunt like that? Oh! I pressured an unwilling woman to get on it, ain't I the stud??!! That's just abuse, which is never cool to have happen. When it comes to having affairs, though, even Majel Barrett was an extra-marital affair he'd been involved in, so I'm inclined to cut Gene a lot of slack, there. Most Men with prestige and/or power have affairs, it's just The Nature of the Beast. Power and Status are very sexy to beautiful women and that's a difficult temptation to ignore. I mean, if a woman marries a hot rock star, she'd gotta know it amounts to basically an open marriage. Even United States Presidents get in on the act, like FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton. Getting feathers ruffled over someone Rich & Famous chasing skirts - even when they're married - doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think most of the doubt comes from the fact that he also hooked up with Nichele Nichols and it was the 60's. I do find it curious that Roddenberry has this label and Brannon Braga doesn't seem to have it when his romance with Jeri Ryan feels just as uncomfortable. Jason
... Haters are gonna hate. People just seem to want to discredit Gene Roddenberry, because he's celebrated as being this "visionary," which - I will be amongst the first to admit - is somewhat exaggerated. I see him - and I've always seen him, really - as being in league with Walt Disney, in the sense that he created entertainment that became a pop icon, around the world. So, yeah, I'm not against minimising the "visionary" bit, in favour of having been a self-made Man who'd aimed his arrow at the mark and hit it. He became a success because he had purpose in his Life. He was driven. And he'd worn many hats, from being a World War II pilot, to flying a commercial airliner, to becoming a cop and finally, taking his storied Life and applying it towards story-telling as a Hollywood writer and producer. Someone like that I, personally, can't help but admire and I find his story compelling. When others only talked, he did it. He made something of himself and that's the kind of Man I can see having a film made about his Life.
I agree that he is a interesting guy. Which is why I created this thread. It's the transformation which is always been the most fascinating thing. I think a "Founder" type of movie is exactly the way to go in doing his story. Were he is part hero and part bad guy. Jason
If Gene Roddenberry had a movie based on his eventful and inspiring Life, I'll be there ... I won't wait until the DVD hits the cheap bin. No! They'll get my money ... they needn't worry about that.