Obviously... She was very sensitive.
Roasting Roddenberry
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
As are a lot of fans if you question the creators of their beloved fandom.
Or if the franchise doesn't do exactly what they think it should. Or if someone in the fandom disagrees with their point of view.
It's all terribly toxic at times.
Not to mention the fact that the things people like about Star Trek were created by other writers, producers, and story editors along with, and sometimes instead of, Roddenberry.
Like I mentioned in another thread, whatever one thinks of Roddenberry (I generally think he was a pretty shitty human being), none of this exists without him.
We don't have a shortage. For every illusion lost, another swiftly fills that space. Sometimes a whole raft of them.
Of course, but without the contributions of people like Coon, Fontana and Justman, Trek would have been a very different thing than what we know.
Of course, but the thing that everyone loves exists because of Roddenberry. Without Roddenberry there is no Star Trek for other folks to contribute to. For as long as Star Trek is a thing, Roddenberry will always be the behind-the-scenes name most associated with it. We're circling around now to do a show about the characters from "The Cage", characters that were created and molded primarily on Roddenberry's typewriter.
For one, Roddenberry was not the co-pilot nor was he part of the aircraft's crew, he was a Pan Am third officer who was dead-heading on that flight. Though apparently he did go up to the cockpit and assist at some point in the flight, it would have been terribly irresponsible for the co-pilot to leave his station during an emergency.
As Pan Am crews were organized at the time:
Captain: Pilot
First officer: Co-pilot
Second officer: Navigator
Third officer: Relief pilot for long flights.
It was a strict seniority system; third officer was an entry-level position for a pilot.
Also would it have killed them to look up what a Constellation looks like? They had three tail fins, hard to miss.
"very likely" aside, what goes on in a relationship that prompts one to leave another, especially during a momentous occasion. But it's probably unlikely that Gene was also a victim of abuse and couldn't take any more*, regardless of events occurring at the time. The thing with sexual-relationships-gone-bad is there's sometimes more than one side to the story, so how much more shitty things were going on and were they all committed by Gene or by Eileen or by both? And even after that, one person's idea of what's shitty and/or morality won't be the same**, so where can a middle ground be made?
* hyperbolic or not, men have and can be the victims of abuse too. To ignore the possibility trivializes the concept.
** getting a little tangential on this, but there are even people who think those who get a STD are "bad people", even if those people are innocent and got the STD from a person that cheated on them or failed to disclose having something. On top of that, some say a disease is just a disease and treatable while others say avoiding it is best...
Not to argue how Majel Barrett felt about Gene Roddenberry in later years, however, Interestingly enough, I was reading this thread after just having read the following passage in Marc Cushman’s These Are the Voyages: Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek in the 1970s: Volume 2 (1975-1977):
“[Jon] Povill’s rewrite also picked up on what Roddenberry was choosing to reveal concerning his relationship with Majel Barrett at this time.
‘Gene’s version of the [“The Nine”] script [completed on December 19, 1975] was degrading of his relationship with Majel’ Povill said. ‘Granted, it was relatively close to the truth. The fact was, when I was invited to have dinner with Gene and Majel in their home, and after they had some drinks, they would get into really, really nasty fights, and it was really uncomfortable for me.’
It was clear to Povill that Majel suspected Roddenberry of being unfaithful while on speaking engagements and at Star Trek conventions. She had been his mistress before becoming his wife. Having been the ‘other woman’ only added to her present insecurity. Once a cheater, always a cheater, she feared.
‘She suffered long and hard in that relationship,’ Povill said, ‘and she made sure that Jean suffered long and hard in that relationship, as well.’
‘I guess what was most uncomfortable for me was that I was often put into the middle and was used by each of them to sort of justify their position. So, in many cases, they were arguing through me, or to me, to judge who was right. And I was way younger than them, so I was certainly not comfortable doing that.’” (Cushman 70-71).
And, yes, I know that many here don’t think very much of Cushman’s “These Are the Voyages” books, but I still thought it worth mentioning in the context of this discussion, especially since these are things being said by Jon Povill, who was a witness to Roddenberry and Barrett’s relationship in the mid 1970s, during the resurgence in Star Trek’s popularity via the syndicated reruns and Star Trek conventions, but prior to the production of the first motion picture and the subsequent movies and TV series.
I would no go that far; Roddenberry--like Stan Lee--often built his reputation on the work of others via the title of "creator" (or any title with the same meaning to a work of fiction), but he did know how to write a story, and brought something to TV that was not going to happen if he picked another career path (remember, at the time TOS made its debut, the general perception of what televised sci-fi could be was Lost in Space....think about that). He certainlywas not out of the loop in being able to recognize the kind of talent who would be able shape the series. To that point, there's no doubt his vision and work in the 1960s remains the greatest version of his creation. Berman-Trek, JJ-Trek and Kurtzman-Trek are not nor will they ever be on that level of ground-breaking creativity or cultural impact (hence the reason later productions are either trying to vampire / remake TOS, or mine it in one way or another).
I don't have problems with Cushman writing out what people have told him. That's fine. The issues most of us have are his sloppy scholarship and that he invents narrative and presents it as fact, like this horse manure (link).
I don't think is much in dispute that GR's wives were unhappy with his behaviour and were not cool with him having so many mistresses.
Probably not unusual behaviour for a man in his position though. Not to say it was justified and it seems like some of his colleagues were not all that impressed. And hopefully that casting couch behaviour would not be tolerated now.
Raping someone is crossing the line IMO. Even if she forgives you. I can't imagine how bad it would be.
Hopefully GR didn't do it
Probably not unusual behaviour for a man in his position though. Not to say it was justified and it seems like some of his colleagues were not all that impressed. And hopefully that casting couch behaviour would not be tolerated now.
Raping someone is crossing the line IMO. Even if she forgives you. I can't imagine how bad it would be.
Hopefully GR didn't do it
As a matter of fact, I have recently seen an episode of Colombo where Captain Kirk killed a woman... Come to mention it, I think Spock was once there as a murderer too. Unbelieveable. Thankfully, they were both busted by the husband of Captain Janeway.
Last edited:
Similar threads
