Gene Roddenberry: Sinner or Saint?

[Santa Kang]

It's gone beyond that though. Should his creation/vision/whatever cancel out the crappy stuff he did as person/employer/father/husband. There seem to be a school of thought saying creating a TV show with "vision" means its okay to be a jerk to people.

 

[King Bob!]

It's gone beyond that though. Should his creation/vision/whatever cancel out the crappy stuff he did as person/employer/father/husband. There seem to be a school of thought saying creating a TV show with "vision" means its okay to be a jerk to people.

 

[Balrog]

I don't care what he did in his personal life.

I don't care that he had a "vision".

I'm not going to trash the guy. I didn't know him. But I'm not going to laud over him for creating "Star Trek". It was a tv show. Get over it already.

 

[AFEK ESLCAFE W]

Star Trek was a TV show and it's not a religion.

No need to elevate Gene Roddenberry -- the TV producer -- into sainthood.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Shit...is there a way for a mod to delete my vote?

 

[CaptainMatt]

Au contraire. I for one regard Roddenberry and the original cast as heroes. They are my heroes. Pure and simple. Nothing anyone of you say will change that.

Roddenberry was as human as we are but he did have a vision and put it out there for us to see. He was brave and creative and not scared of what other men could do to him for his values. He will always be remembered as a good guy in my home for that.
I think it high time this topic get locked as it will only be repetitive and could start a flame war. But that is for the mods to decide.

 

[King Bob!]

Hundred posts in and no indication of a flame war yet...

 

[7thsealord]

Hundred posts in and no indication of a flame war yet...

It'll come.

 

[Lord Garth]

I was a mod here for six years (ignore the rank and registration date, I originally posted here from 1999-2010, went away for personal reasons, then re-registered) and threads aren't closed preemptively because there might be a flame war.

If people take responsibility, then there won't even be a flame war at all. I can't stand "Oh no! Controversial thread! Close it down!!!" In fact, I think sometimes posters actively take advantage of knowing the thread will eventually be closed so they say whatever because "the thread will be closed down anyway, so I might as well work in as many licks as I can because there's no way in Hell I'm going to let other guy have the last word!" and then, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is closed.

 

[bbailey861]

I am not religious, but if you follow conventional standards, all of us are sinners. I don't believe there are any saints, either.

 

[RandyS]

I am not religious, but if you follow conventional standards, all of us are sinners. I don't believe there are any saints, either.

Hey! I am a saint. Of course, I'm also a sinner but that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[SantaTom]

Roddenberry was as human as we are but he did have a vision and put it out there for us to see. He was brave and creative and not scared of what other men could do to him for his values.

I will not question your personal choice of heroes. However, Roddenberry had an idea for a TV show that he hoped would sell and be a commercial success. That's it. Sure, he wanted it to be intelligently written and when he went to cast it, he may have wanted some diversity to the cast members.

But, ultimately, he was just trying to make a good TV show. The idea that he had some grand vision to share with humanity and that Star Trek was his vehicle for doing that is revisionist history, begun largely by Roddenberry himself during the booming popularity of TOS reruns in the 70's.

 

[jayrath]

Do we really dare to judge a TV producer whose career peaked in the mid to late 1960s? And who even then was only a middling success?

To do so, we should all first research the lives of other TV producers of the era.

As he grew older he changed, hopefully learned, and apparently embraced hubris. But he obviously did try to personally evolve beyond the "Mad Men" mindset of his earlier life.

 

[King Bob!]

As he grew older he changed, hopefully learned, and apparently embraced hubris. But he obviously did try to personally evolve beyond the "Mad Men" mindset of his earlier life.

How so? He continued cheating on his wife and continued to steal credit for others work late into life.

 

[Navigator_NCC2120]

Roddenberry was as human as we are but he did have a vision and put it out there for us to see. He was brave and creative and not scared of what other men could do to him for his values.

I will not question your personal choice of heroes. However, Roddenberry had an idea for a TV show that he hoped would sell and be a commercial success. That's it. Sure, he wanted it to be intelligently written and when he went to cast it, he may have wanted some diversity to the cast members.

But, ultimately, he was just trying to make a good TV show. The idea that he had some grand vision to share with humanity and that Star Trek was his vehicle for doing that is revisionist history, begun largely by Roddenberry himself during the booming popularity of TOS reruns in the 70's.

I have always read that Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek to make social commentary on current events that would go unnoticed by the censors not that he created Star Trek just for profit. He said that the science fiction genre allowed him to do so, whereas other genres would not.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Roddenberry was just this guy, you know?

"Bad people" blow up day care centers with fertilizer bombs. Judging the great run of human beings as "good" or "bad" is arrogant and best and most certainly a waste of life.

Bad people also exert their influence to keep others quiet while they steal and cheat. It's all relative.

Did you ever have a chance to work directly with Roddenberry? If so how would you gauge the man?

He was very ill at the time I was (briefly) involved with TNG. He was rarely around. I saw him once but never spoke to him.

For me it's sufficient, as regards most people, to say that thus-and-so did a bad thing or a good thing, that he or she behaves in a trustworthy or dishonest fashion often enough to either avoid dealing with them or not. At what point does someone become a "bad person" or a saint? The question's not even an interesting one where most people one meets in one's life are concerned. For the sake of Mr. Godwin, I'll stipulate that Hitler was a bad man.

GR had his fans and his detractors among those who worked for him for long periods of time; it would be easier for those of us who didn't know him but are analyzing him if most of them lined up on the same side of the "bad/good" question...but they don't. He apparently inspired personal affection and loyalty in some of the folks he also appears to have treated most badly. Go figure.

 

[Count Zero]

Shit...is there a way for a mod to delete my vote?

Nope. But it isn't a public poll, so no-one will know what you voted for unless you tell them.

 

[Santa Kang]

Roddenberry was as human as we are but he did have a vision and put it out there for us to see. He was brave and creative and not scared of what other men could do to him for his values.

I will not question your personal choice of heroes. However, Roddenberry had an idea for a TV show that he hoped would sell and be a commercial success. That's it. Sure, he wanted it to be intelligently written and when he went to cast it, he may have wanted some diversity to the cast members.

But, ultimately, he was just trying to make a good TV show. The idea that he had some grand vision to share with humanity and that Star Trek was his vehicle for doing that is revisionist history, begun largely by Roddenberry himself during the booming popularity of TOS reruns in the 70's.

I have always read that Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek to make social commentary on current events that would go unnoticed by the censors not that he created Star Trek just for profit. He said that the science fiction genre allowed him to do so, whereas other genres would not.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

I don't know about that. I've seen other shows in other genres do similar "forbidden" plots around the same time Star Trek was on the air. I think Star Tre's biggest claim in breaking ground is that it was a non anthology SF show for adults.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There may have been an element of that - Solow mentions brainstorming the show with Roddenberry and there having been the idea of actually naming the Captain "Gulliver" at one point - but it was hardly the driving motivation behind a television producer trying to develop and get a television series on the air. And yes, there were other shows on television doing the kinds of things Trek did, but not with as broad a brush.

 

[Sindatur]

I've heard so many things Trek pioneered, that I have recently read these Forums that Trek wasn't "The First" and/or it wasn't Roddenberry, but rather the network hopping on the burgeoning racially diverse bandwagon.

Also, I swear I watched a Special Feature that said Roddenberry didn't start up with Majel, until after Trek was running, and she had been cast as Christine, but, apparently that's also untrue.

So... Is the First Interacial Prime Time Kiss claim true for Plato's StepChildren?
​