I'm always amazed at how personal people in forums (including here) become with Gene Roddenberry. It's not much different than people criticising Lucas or Kennedy for their impact on Star Wars. It's like most of us love Star Trek but mention Roddenberry or Berman and out come the barbs which usually are not about the show but the actual people.
Kathleen Kennedy Damaging Star Wars....?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
Depends.
If the conversation is about sexual harassment on Star Trek’s set? Then it makes sense to talk about those dudes personally.
Talking about why you think Threshold sucks? Not so much. Commenting on Braga’s every tweet for years that he’s a hack that deserves to be keelhauled? Also pretty damn inappropriate.
The other little niggle is that Roddenberry actually harmed people whilst making Trek. Which is obviously, you know...objectively bad and affects how some people view the show. For eg. TOS mini-obsession with having Rand stalked and assaulted takes an even worse light after knowing some BTS details.
Kennedy and Lucas? They wore branded T-shirts, and created Jar Jar. The scoundrels.
Last edited:
How?Moral Equivalency on display.
I rewatched TLJ yesterday. I liked it more than I did the previous time I saw it.
It's still a deeply flawed and occasionally annoying film but it isn't remotely as bad as the Incel Butthurt Fanboy Brigades make it sound and for the most part it's an enjoyable movie. They're assholes.
I must be doing this fan thing all wrong. #HelpMeIncelWhineKenobi
It's still a deeply flawed and occasionally annoying film but it isn't remotely as bad as the Incel Butthurt Fanboy Brigades make it sound and for the most part it's an enjoyable movie. They're assholes.
I must be doing this fan thing all wrong. #HelpMeIncelWhineKenobi
It’s easily the most interesting Star Wars film because it actually tries to be something other than a movie that’s just a setup for space battles and lightsaber fights. Whether it was successful at that is up for debate, but that isn’t the complaint from the whiny fanboys. I think that’s why they hate it so much, they just want the fluff. Anything more challenging than pew pew is just too much for them.
White male fluff without too many vaginas.
That was Rian Johnson's idea of trying something new? Other than the plot holes and the toxic Reylo arc, I don't really recall anything "new" in "The Last Jedi". I still recall encountering so many scenes and moments that seem like copies from the OT films.
And the whole idea that "anyone" can be Force sensitive . . . what was that? Lucas had already proven this in the PT films with Anakin Skywalker. And the other Force users, who were not his descendants, did not come from families of Force users. So, how is this "anyone can be Force sensitive" idea . . . new?
I'm sorry, but for me . . . "The Last Jedi" was just a mess.
Much like your post.
Then good luck with seeing any new films anytime soon, because lo and behold, they are made by human beings who have feelings.
We aren't talking here about constructive criticism, we are talking about the ridiculous level of personal attacks and abuse that have been heaped on these people, including here in these very forums.
Based on what exactly?
If you honestly can look at his behaviour, his interviews and his decisions since the prequels and not see someone who at least partially just gave up and retreated behind the scenes I don't know what to tell you.
Have you seen the youtube videos, the blogs, the reports of him being stalked, the break in, the hyperbolic personal criticism personified by the phrase "George Lucas raped my childhood"?
If that's not abuse I'm not sure what is. Does he need to be tied down and tortured before it qualifies?
In some cases I would tend to agree, but much of the criticism of them is much more low key and much more justified. If there were an equivalence between the two scenarios I'd say you were right, but I'm not sure there is. Lucas and Kennedy are accused of making bad films and publicly torn to shreds in a very personal and sustained way, Roddenberry and Berman are accused (with plenty of evidence) of being sexual predators whilst making good TV shows. The barbs are about the people precisely because the issue is with the people and their behaviour, not with their creative output.
You yourself have repeatedly publicly mocked and insulted an actress for no reason other than her waistline, I assume you've considered your own actions here?
Not even remotely, what a strange thing to say.
Last edited:
You’re right: Creating Jar Jar was obviously a way worse crime than wearing a branded t-shirt. How could one even mention the two on the same breath?
Mea culpa.
(For anyone not picking up on the obvious: I don’t loathe Jar Jar, and think his hatedom is a bit overblown. If there’s no Jar Jar, there’s no Roos Tarpals guys!)
Last edited:
I agree with everything you said.
I don't hate the movie, it's just that I am disappointed with the movie.
It certainly was not what I had hoped it would be.
For possible rape, Refuge!
Also, as someone pointed out, moral equivilances aren’t exactly good form in an argument. Because they just distract from the point.
For eg. Let’s pretend we agree. Let’s say people harassed Roddenberry until his deathbed. That we had endless threads devoted to masturbating about his sacking, people blaming him for defiling their innocent snowflake childhoods, and that he literally received endless hate mail until the day he died...
... because he wrote Turnabout Intruder.
So then what? How on earth does that prove such behaviour isn’t vile, and should just continue without comment?
Last edited:
Eh. I’ve heard people gripe about Berman’s adherence to ‘the Roddenberry box.’ Which was a production term.
The derisive use of ‘Gene’s Vision’, is a comment against those presumptive enough to put words in the mouth of a dead stranger that they claim to respect. All because they’re under the
Also, this is still all beside the point.
Last edited:
Similar threads
