Gene Roddenberry: Sinner or Saint?
- Thread starter BillJ
- Start date
Huh? How does that work?
That doesn't seem to correlate with what you said.
It's often a mistake to learn more about your "heroes" beyond the works they produce. We often find that they are all too human. The treat other people badly, make errors in judgement and do things that you would never do. Once that happens though you have to separate the "art" from the man. I love the Beatles and Star Trek but John Lennon and Gene Roddenberry have doe a few things I don't love. Still, I'd like to sit down with them and have a conversation.
A
Amaris
Guest
Christopher takes all the fun out of it because he's right. 
I don't agree with all his view like Socialism, but I think he's just like anybody else. People tend to judge him harsher because he's famous...just like Brandon Braga. What matters more is he followed his heart. I'm sure if people get to know him there are some good aspects about him...just like you and I.
Some people think they are so much better than others and like to give people in the spotlight a hard time. Kindda reminds me of my friend's ex-grilfriend's sister, from Sri Lanka. She tried to run over her boyfriend with her car and she got arrested and now serving time in prison.
Some people think they are so much better than others and like to give people in the spotlight a hard time. Kindda reminds me of my friend's ex-grilfriend's sister, from Sri Lanka. She tried to run over her boyfriend with her car and she got arrested and now serving time in prison.
I find that both terms are ludicrous to even be considered in being applied to GR given his opposition to religious aspects.
In my opinion, he was neither.
If ONLY the producers showed what some people on TrekBBS apparently perceive as 'extreme' in regards to what he had in mind for Star Trek.
The point is not to make a show something with which people can 'relate to'.
I really detest that notion.
Once you do that, you end up with contemporary things in a merely different setting.
DS9 did that on too many occasions which is why I found it a bore-fest.
In my opinion, he was neither.
If ONLY the producers showed what some people on TrekBBS apparently perceive as 'extreme' in regards to what he had in mind for Star Trek.
The point is not to make a show something with which people can 'relate to'.
I really detest that notion.
Once you do that, you end up with contemporary things in a merely different setting.
DS9 did that on too many occasions which is why I found it a bore-fest.
I get so tired of this misconception, that TNG's post-scarcity economy was socialist. They're two completely different things. Socialism is still a scarcity-based economic model, one built on the assumptions that resources are finite and labor is required to produce goods. It's just a different way of managing those resources and labor than capitalism is, because it's about putting control of the means of production into the hands of the laborers themselves (or into the hands of the state that's theoretically run by the laborers themselves, but rarely is in practice) and distributing the finite resources of the society evenly among all the laborers. But an economy such as the replicator-based society of TNG is built on a completely different set of conditions and assumptions, because labor is no longer required for survival and resources are no longer finite.
Judging him by Star Trek, he was saint. I don't know much about his private life.
Indeed, a very poor thread and premise.
One, it was meant as a bit of fun on an otherwise slow weekend. It wasn't a referendum on whether Gene got to go through the pearly gates. Two, I have a tough time respecting someone who told me that I should show basic respect to others, yet throughout his life he never actually put those high ideals into practice. From extramarital affairs to cheating coworkers out of their hard work.
People seem to think that because he created a cultural phenomenon that he is above having his actions examined.
Gene was, quite frankly, a tool.
And the very poor Christianised choice of Sinner/Saint rather than just "Good/Bad person"? as there's no such thing as "sin" that really doesn't help foster any kind of proper discussion.
And of course, no inbetween, either diefy or damn him, goodness forbid "misunderstood", "complicated", "poor choices" etc not featuring at all.
Poor, poor effort.
And of course, no inbetween, either diefy or damn him, goodness forbid "misunderstood", "complicated", "poor choices" etc not featuring at all.
Poor, poor effort.
Huh?
I thought most of us were bright enough to pick up that the choices equaled good or bad person. Plus, I thought that "does his vision absolve him of his transgressions?" was pretty clear.
Live and learn...
Can someone list the things that he did in personal life that make him a bad person? I know that he was apparently a womanizer, but any specifics?
Does his vision absolve him of his transgressions?
Not really that hard a question to answer, honestly. When he look at the total sum of his life, public and private, would you call him a good person or a bad person?
Does the fact that he entertained you make up for the fact that he was a very poor human being?
Well we know that he "misrepresented" several of the myths that floated around TOS, including NBC wanting Majel replaced as Number One because she was a woman, when in fact it was simply because she was a shitty actress.
* Stole the story idea for Tomorrow is Yesterday from producer Bob Justman.
* Wrote non-sense lyrics to the music Alexander Courage produced so he could claim half the royalties if Courage ever made any from it.
* Refused to give D.C. Fontana and David Gerrold co-creator credits on TNG. They ended up suing and settling the matter privately.
Are some of Gene's highlights...