Gene gets much bad talk around here....

[plynch]

Agree. I was countering the idea he only did things for money or sex. We simply don't know why he wrote and made tv shows (yes, of course with the help of others).

(Even when we think we know our own motives, we're only part right, or worse, depending how Freudian ya wanna get.)

 

[fireproof78]

It makes perfect sense why the first season of TNG had so many writing issues. Have you ever read anything written by lawyers?

Yes, and it made me want to treat it like the One Ring and cast it in to the fire!

 

[JonnyQuest037]

In many posts Gene Roddenberry, creator of the greatness we're here for, gets slammed. There's Gene's VisionTM thing and all that. While no one is perfect it feels like people here don't appreciate him. Why is that?

We discussed this here back in March of this year. You can read through that thread if you're curious. I also wrote about my reasons why I don't have a high opinion of the man here.

Damn, really!? I remember reading a summary of Whitney autobiography that implied like a backstage worker did it, like a member of the art department (I always worried it might have been Matt Jefferies). I've also heard it might been an NBC executive.

Rather than retype what I've said here before, I'll just link you to what I wrote here last December. It outlines all of my reasons why I believe it was Roddenberry who raped Grace Lee Whitney.

 

[Silvercrest]

Yes, and it made me want to treat it like the One Ring and cast it in to the fire!

Insert joke about your username here.

 

[Damian]

Here's a question I started wondering about. Gene Roddenberry sounds like the creep of creeps, allegedly even a sexual assaulter. And at the very least he sounds like a serial abuser in various ways, not just sexually.

Should we even hold his creations in such high esteem then? Should we continue to 'honor' his memory with continuing Star Trek? Or in an ideal world should it just be shut down and forgotten? Are we bad people for enjoying Star Trek, knowing what kind of man he was?

I mean, at the end of the day we can argue how much Roddenberry contributed to Star Trek in it's early days. But I don't think there can be any doubt the original idea is his. I don't think you can ever fully separate Roddenberry from Star Trek. Everything is based on his original idea, his original creation so it's not as simple as pretending he never existed.

I'm not asking that to be snarky. I mean, I'm a huge Hitchcock film fan. Hitchcock has his own sordid history with women, and he was well known for treating actors like cattle (though I should add not all actors that worked for him felt that way--he did have several do more than 1 film for him). But I've learned to separate the art from the man. He was a master director and he always tried to push the envelope.

Is it something similar with Roddenberry? Is it that he was a creep that had a good idea once that developed into something worthy to enjoy, despite what kind of man the creator was? Though you can argue Hitchcock was far and away a better artist than Roddenberry ever was. I don't think anybody could ever say Hitchcock's mark wasn't made on most of his films, in fact, quite the opposite. His hand was clear on most everything he did. On the other hand, there is considerable debate how much Roddenberry had to do with what eventually showed up on screen. Does that make it different?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Bad people can still produce good things.

 

[fireproof78]

I think if you dig in to any person's history you'll find sordid or uncomfortable details that just sit at odds with personal beliefs or morals. And how each person will have to reconcile how far they can distance the person from their work.

 

[BillJ]

Should we even hold his creations in such high esteem then? Should we continue to 'honor' his memory with continuing Star Trek? Or in an ideal world should it just be shut down and forgotten? Are we bad people for enjoying Star Trek, knowing what kind of man he was?

A fair question. I sat that you have to acknowledge the roots, but at the same time, there's a lot of good work done out there by thousands of folks across fifty-five years. Does the creators sins outweigh the work of all those other people that have been involved?

Though I'm not perfect, I like to think that the values I got from Star Trek, outweighs the sins of Roddenberry. The answer is going to be different for every individual.

 

[The Wormhole]

I ain't changing my opinion of Star Trek because of the personality flaws of a man who's been dead for close to thirty years. Indeed, modern Trek fandom has to stop letting Roddenberry cast a shadow over the franchise three decades after the man died.

 

[fireproof78]

Does the creators sins outweigh the work of all those other people that have been involved?

Possibly.

 

[BillJ]

Possibly.

Each individual has to weigh those things on their own and decide how to reconcile them with their values.

 

[fireproof78]

Each individual has to weigh those things on their own and decide how to reconcile them with their values.

Yup.

 

[Damian]

Though I'm not perfect, I like to think that the values I got from Star Trek, outweighs the sins of Roddenberry. The answer is going to be different for every individual.

I ain't changing my opinion of Star Trek because of the personality flaws of a man who's been dead for close to thirty years. Indeed, modern Trek fandom has to stop letting Roddenberry cast a shadow over the franchise three decades after the man died.

I think if you dig in to any person's history you'll find sordid or uncomfortable details that just sit at odds with personal beliefs or morals. And how each person will have to reconcile how far they can distance the person from their work.

Well, in my case I became a Star Trek fan in 1986 (the only reason I know that is it was when I first saw TMP on VHS, which was a few months before TVH came out). My first actual exposure to anything regarding Roddenberry, the person, was in 1988 when I saw his introduction to "The Cage" when it came out on VHS. Before that, to me, his name was just another name on the credits. And I didn't learn much more about him until years later (probably around the time I learned about Richard Arnold's running interference for him on tie-ins since I'm a big Star Trek novel reader). And at that time it was about his handling of Star Trek affairs and his self inflated importance, things that just made him look like a pompous ass maybe, but not a predator. It was a few years before I started hearing about his alleged predations.

So by the time I had learned just what kind of man he was I had already invested years into Star Trek, bought countless movies, shows and books. And it'd be a hard thing just to shut off now admittedly.

If I knew way back when I started what I know now, I'm not sure I would have invested my time into Star Trek. I mean, if it was just the pompous ass stuff, his taking more credit than he deserves, that's not what I'd call a deal-killer. Let's face it. There's no shortage of self-important pompous asses in Hollywood. But the alleged sexual assault stuff just takes it to a whole other level.

I suppose in a way, the fact that it took so many other people to make his vision a reality makes it a bit easier I guess to separate. It probably would be harder if he really did have as huge a hand as he seemed to think he did in the day to day running of Star Trek.

I guess you can argue Star Trek is so far removed from Roddenberry's influence at this point that he's easier to ignore. Even going back to shows like Deep Space Nine and Voyager were pretty far removed from Roddenberry, since he was already out of the day to day picture by the end of season 2 of TNG and probably an in-name only executive producer after that.

 

[JoseNoodles]

Here's a question I started wondering about. Gene Roddenberry sounds like the creep of creeps, allegedly even a sexual assaulter. And at the very least he sounds like a serial abuser in various ways, not just sexually.

Should we even hold his creations in such high esteem then? Should we continue to 'honor' his memory with continuing Star Trek? Or in an ideal world should it just be shut down and forgotten? Are we bad people for enjoying Star Trek, knowing what kind of man he was?

I mean, at the end of the day we can argue how much Roddenberry contributed to Star Trek in it's early days. But I don't think there can be any doubt the original idea is his. I don't think you can ever fully separate Roddenberry from Star Trek. Everything is based on his original idea, his original creation so it's not as simple as pretending he never existed.

I'm not asking that to be snarky. I mean, I'm a huge Hitchcock film fan. Hitchcock has his own sordid history with women, and he was well known for treating actors like cattle (though I should add not all actors that worked for him felt that way--he did have several do more than 1 film for him). But I've learned to separate the art from the man. He was a master director and he always tried to push the envelope.

Is it something similar with Roddenberry? Is it that he was a creep that had a good idea once that developed into something worthy to enjoy, despite what kind of man the creator was? Though you can argue Hitchcock was far and away a better artist than Roddenberry ever was. I don't think anybody could ever say Hitchcock's mark wasn't made on most of his films, in fact, quite the opposite. His hand was clear on most everything he did. On the other hand, there is considerable debate how much Roddenberry had to do with what eventually showed up on screen. Does that make it different?

I recently did a watch-through of TOS, and I feel that a lot of what made it successful seemed to have been in-spite of Roddenberry, not because of him. The most I felt his presence was in the "last episode" Turnabout Intruder, where Kirk had to deal with the "indignity" of being a woman. On the flipside I was rewatching Sealab 2021 on HBO Max, and I recently learned MC Chris (who voiced Hesh on the show) accused show co-creater Matt Thompson of sexually assaulting him when they were out drinking one night. That has pretty much ruined any goodwill I had of the show, and I can't bring myself to keep watching it or Thompson's other shows like Archer. I don't fully understand why I have that reaction to this show, but not to Star Trek: The Original Series in light of Roddenberry's sins. Maybe it's because Thompson is alive while Roddenberry's dead, but that doesn't fully explain it either. Maybe cause I've been a Star Trek fan for longer. Maybe because I find myself nowadays liking DS9 most out of all Trek series (which wore it Not Gene's Vision-ness as a badge of courage).

 

[Damian]

Maybe cause I've been a Star Trek fan for longer. Maybe because I find myself nowadays liking DS9 most out of all Trek series (which wore it Not Gene's Vision-ness as a badge of courage).

That could be part of it. If you found out about Roddenberry from the beginning, perhaps that would have affected Star Trek as well.

Maybe it's the show itself as well. You can like the art and not the man behind it.

I guess in life few people are truly all good or truly all evil. Many of us fall toward one side or the other.

Roddenberry sounded like a bad guy for the most part. Was he evil? As in Adolf Hitler evil? I mean, that'd be a hard sell obviously. So I guess you can say a bad guy can occasionally do a good thing, just as a good guy can occasionally do a bad thing. Roddenberry, for all his flaws, had one good idea that he fought to make a reality (and after reading "The Making of Star Trek" I have no doubt he fought to make Star Trek a reality, the deck wasn't exactly in his favor for a show like Star Trek). A reality that actually made men like him obsolete.

Perhaps it was a brief moment of insight. Creating a universe where guys like him no longer existed.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, in my case I became a Star Trek fan in 1986 (the only reason I know that is it was when I first saw TMP on VHS, which was a few months before TVH came out). My first actual exposure to anything regarding Roddenberry, the person, was in 1988 when I saw his introduction to "The Cage" when it came out on VHS. Before that, to me, his name was just another name on the credits. And I didn't learn much more about him until years later (probably around the time I learned about Richard Arnold's running interference for him on tie-ins since I'm a big Star Trek novel reader). And at that time it was about his handling of Star Trek affairs and his self inflated importance, things that just made him look like a pompous ass maybe, but not a predator. It was a few years before I started hearing about his alleged predations.

So by the time I had learned just what kind of man he was I had already invested years into Star Trek, bought countless movies, shows and books. And it'd be a hard thing just to shut off now admittedly.

If I knew way back when I started what I know now, I'm not sure I would have invested my time into Star Trek. I mean, if it was just the pompous ass stuff, his taking more credit than he deserves, that's not what I'd call a deal-killer. Let's face it. There's no shortage of self-important pompous asses in Hollywood. But the alleged sexual assault stuff just takes it to a whole other level.

I suppose in a way, the fact that it took so many other people to make his vision a reality makes it a bit easier I guess to separate. It probably would be harder if he really did have as huge a hand as he seemed to think he did in the day to day running of Star Trek.

I guess you can argue Star Trek is so far removed from Roddenberry's influence at this point that he's easier to ignore. Even going back to shows like Deep Space Nine and Voyager were pretty far removed from Roddenberry, since he was already out of the day to day picture by the end of season 2 of TNG and probably an in-name only executive producer after that.

Here's the thing for me, and how I approach it. One, Trek is far less sacred to me than it was when I was younger. It simply lacks the importance when I first came to it, and how much I have learned since then. If Roddenberry was willing to walk away from his creation then that says enough to me about the transient nature of things. I am simply far more willing to give it up if it comes down to it.

I think you're point about Trek being further away from Gene's "vision" may be an accurate one, or at least the vision with TNG (evolved humanity rather than improved humanity). But, ultimately, there is little that I can say in terms of changing GR's behavior; that's not my responsibility. It's a case of learning from the mistakes of the past to continue forward, for good or for ill.

Ultimately, it just makes Trek a little less in my eyes-or brings it down to Earth. For me, that's a positive.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Trek has (thankfully) evolved beyond his original vision and spread into directions he never would have even conceived back then. The message is sound and the original messenger is dead. People can choose to lionize them if they like, but I personally won't, nor will many others. The history has been pretty well documented by multiple corroborating sources over the decades.

Same thing with TOS Battlestar Galactica. I love that show - always have - but I've always found Glen Larson's viewpoints on certain things a little...off (albeit not as horrific as some of the well-known Roddenberry stories, to be fair) and his addressing of fan questions at conventions rather dismissive of devoid of substantive answers (meaning: he didn't know the answers but didn't want to admit it). I will continue to love what he first made, but it has evolved beyond him and hopefully will continue some day in some fashion if they can get off their asses to make it happen. He is but one small cog in the greater machine now.

So, too, is Roddenberry, and Trek has gone on quite swimmingly without him.

 

[JoseNoodles]

Perhaps it was a brief moment of insight. Creating a universe where guys like him no longer existed.

Wow, never thought of it that way. Interesting point.

 

[Silvercrest]

I have no doubt he fought to make Star Trek a reality, the deck wasn't exactly in his favor for a show like Star Trek). A reality that actually made men like him obsolete.

Perhaps it was a brief moment of insight. Creating a universe where guys like him no longer existed.

From "Serenity":

I'm not going to live there... There's no place for me there, any more than there is for you. Malcolm, I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

 

[Kor]

Consider the atrocious lyrics that GR wrote for the TOS theme (with no intention of using them on the show) so that he could get songwriting royalties.

Kor