Why were the other characters so hostile to Christine Chapel?

[Nerys Myk]

I find liking someones "art" doesn't mean I have to like them or some of their choices.

 

[A.V.I.A.F.]

I'm very clearly anti-adultery.

But I question anyone who claims to want to change the world when they clearly treat those closest to them like shit. Like I posted in another thread, my problem isn't with Roddenberry making mistakes, it's the fact that he continued to make those same mistakes over and over. Never actually striving to make himself better.

I see Star Trek as entertainment and nothing more.

Well, one can still want to change the world for the better despite one's own shortcomings.

I find liking someones "art" doesn't mean I have to like them or some of their choices.

Yes, my point exactly.

 

[BillJ]

I find liking someones "art" doesn't mean I have to like them or some of their choices.

This. But I also think that those personal choices can color how you see the end product as well. When I watch Star Trek anymore I wonder was Gene really trying to change the world or was he merely lining his pockets with as much cash as possible and using the audiences gullibility for that.

 

[A.V.I.A.F.]

I find liking someones "art" doesn't mean I have to like them or some of their choices.

This. But I also think that those personal choices can color how you see the end product as well. When I watch Star Trek anymore I wonder was Gene really trying to change the world or was he merely lining his pockets with as much cash as possible and using the audiences gullibility for that.

How is the audience being gullible?

 

[TerragonSix]

Is Ernest Hemingway's written works marred by the fact that he was a womanizing alcoholic who later killed himself?

 

[Jonas Grumby]

You know, it's not like Gene Roddenberry put Star Trek out there and then said, "Look at my work, not at me."

 

[BillJ]

I find liking someones "art" doesn't mean I have to like them or some of their choices.

This. But I also think that those personal choices can color how you see the end product as well. When I watch Star Trek anymore I wonder was Gene really trying to change the world or was he merely lining his pockets with as much cash as possible and using the audiences gullibility for that.

How is the audience being gullible?

All you have to do is look around this board. At the number of people who gripe about certain elements of Trek violating Gene's Vision. Take a gander at discussions about Insurrection or Kirk's actions in Trek 2009.

It's always astonished me how many people treat Trek like a religion instead of a TV show. YMMV.

 

[TerragonSix]

This. But I also think that those personal choices can color how you see the end product as well. When I watch Star Trek anymore I wonder was Gene really trying to change the world or was he merely lining his pockets with as much cash as possible and using the audiences gullibility for that.

How is the audience being gullible?

All you have to do is look around this board. At the number of people who gripe about certain elements of Trek violating Gene's Vision. Take a gander at discussions about Insurrection or Kirk's actions in Trek 2009.

It's always astonished me how many people treat Trek like a religion instead of a TV show. YMMV.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Are you trying to say they are gullible in the fact that GR's idealistic vision of Star Trek at odds with his personal life?

Or, are you saying that the audience is gullible for critiquing work based on an original idea with a different twist?

 

[Greg Cox]

Is Ernest Hemingway's written works marred by the fact that he was a womanizing alcoholic who later killed himself?

Hell, science fiction was invented by a teenage girl who was shacking up with a married man (whose abandoned wife eventually killed herself.)

Doesn't hurt Frankenstein one bit.

And let's not get started on H. G. Wells' love life . . . except that, when it came to womanizing, he made Roddenberry look like a monk!

 

[22 Stars]

Yeah, sorry BillJ and others, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

And for those saying Trek is treated like a religion, I think a better comparison is a Philosophy. Yes fans get caught up in canon etc., but I always find it strange that fans can disconnect from the philosophy of Trek, a Humanistic one, all that. I think this underlying and even overt Humanistic philosophy is why Trek has lasted so long, and affect people in ways they often can't quite find the words to explain.

It's the anti-religion - religion. Don't accept 'that thing' as GOD, live your life as you determine it should be lived.

Oh, and I don't think the OP has ever chimed in again, so I vote Troll.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The first that Majel heard about the part of Lwaxana Troi was when Gene came home to tell her that he'd written the perfect part for her, and that she wouldn't even have to act.

But... she had also been pressuring him to include something for her. I seem to recall she threatened him with the couch.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It was the 60s and Hollywood.

Lots of celebs had open marriages because divorce was so difficult to get. I assume the US had similar laws to Australia, where one partner had to prove adultery by the other partner, involving the need for photographic evidence, private detectives, etc, to build a case.

 

[horatio83]

I'm very clearly anti-adultery.

But I question anyone who claims to want to change the world when they clearly treat those closest to them like shit. Like I posted in another thread, my problem isn't with Roddenberry making mistakes, it's the fact that he continued to make those same mistakes over and over. Never actually striving to make himself better.

I see Star Trek as entertainment and nothing more.

Do you want to say between the lines that you don't care about Gene's vision? This is totally valid, different people cherish different elements of Trek. For me the optimism of this sci-fi franchise is very important.

 

[BillJ]

I'm very clearly anti-adultery.

But I question anyone who claims to want to change the world when they clearly treat those closest to them like shit. Like I posted in another thread, my problem isn't with Roddenberry making mistakes, it's the fact that he continued to make those same mistakes over and over. Never actually striving to make himself better.

I see Star Trek as entertainment and nothing more.

Do you want to say between the lines that you don't care about Gene's vision? This is totally valid, different people cherish different elements of Trek. For me the optimism of this sci-fi franchise is very important.

No. What I've consistently said is that I have a tough time respecting the man who violated the most basic tenet of his vision, basic respect for one another, time and again.

It really watered down the impact of said vision in this viewers opinion.

 

[horatio83]

A friend told me once that she couldn't stand Brave New World anymore after she learnt that Huxley was frequently high when he wrote it. Why care about the author if his art is great, why care that Shakespeare wrote a propaganda piece for Elizabeth when reading or seeing Richard III, why care that a greedy SOB created a series in which humans are anything but greedy?

 

[Sindatur]

A friend told me once that she couldn't stand Brave New World anymore after she learnt that Huxley was frequently high when he wrote it. Why care about the author if his art is great, why care that Shakespeare wrote a propaganda piece for Elizabeth when reading or seeing Richard III, why care that a greedy SOB created a series in which humans are anything but greedy?

Heh, <Envisions Newt Gingrich with Cauldron and pointy hat on the Congress Floor, pointing at Pres. Clinton with his magic wand, while shouting "Burn the Witch">

It is tough to forgive someone their sins, while they are attacking others for those same sins or preaching against those same sins.

 

[BillJ]

A friend told me once that she couldn't stand Brave New World anymore after she learnt that Huxley was frequently high when he wrote it. Why care about the author if his art is great, why care that Shakespeare wrote a propaganda piece for Elizabeth when reading or seeing Richard III, why care that a greedy SOB created a series in which humans are anything but greedy?

Heh, <Envisions Newt Gingrich with Cauldron and pointy hat on the Congress Floor, pointing at Pres. Clinton, while shouting "Burn the Witch">

It is tough to forgive someone their sins, while they are attacking others for those same sins or preaching against those same sins.

I'm glad that someone understands my point whether they agree with it or not.

 

[Sindatur]

A friend told me once that she couldn't stand Brave New World anymore after she learnt that Huxley was frequently high when he wrote it. Why care about the author if his art is great, why care that Shakespeare wrote a propaganda piece for Elizabeth when reading or seeing Richard III, why care that a greedy SOB created a series in which humans are anything but greedy?

Heh, <Envisions Newt Gingrich with Cauldron and pointy hat on the Congress Floor, pointing at Pres. Clinton, while shouting "Burn the Witch">

It is tough to forgive someone their sins, while they are attacking others for those same sins or preaching against those same sins.

I'm glad that someone understands my point whether they agree with it or not.

Glad to know someone else is old enough to catch the reference

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Toxic Newt is only 4 years older than me. I get and second the reference.

 

[Capt Bob April]

The first that Majel heard about the part of Lwaxana Troi was when Gene came home to tell her that he'd written the perfect part for her, and that she wouldn't even have to act.

But... she had also been pressuring him to include something for her. I seem to recall she threatened him with the couch.

Probably a case of Gene thinking, "Be careful what you wish for..."