Roasting Roddenberry

[Maurice]

There is no proof of the Whitney situation.

As is the case for most alleged sexual assault. And?

Mind you, albeit the clues she put in her memoirs pretty much point straight to Roddenberry, she did not directly accuse him. In fact, she never even seemed to blame the assailant. He story was about how she hit rock bottom and had to pull herself up, and the assault was a big part of what sent her on the downward spiral. I took her to lunch in 2012 and if anything she was very Christian in forgiving people and not blaming them, which I admired.

As to Eileen being unfaithful, what's the source of that. Gene?

I dunno that no woman ever spoke badly of him. Sackett's account of being basically hounded into sex with isn't exactly a sparkling recommendation to his character. And Gary Lockwood's bio features an account of him sending his then girlfriend to meet Gene to see if she could get a part on a show, and her running out minutes later because Gene tried to kiss her.

@Harvey and I are doing research for a new project and going through a lot of primary source documents, including staff memos, and some of what even Bob Justman writes is cringe-worthy insofar as attitudes towards women were amongst the Star Trek staff.

This is why "never meet your heroes" is such a truism. Often the truth is ugly. Issac Asimov was infamous for goosing women's behinds at every opportunity. Harlan Ellison (hardly a model of appropriate behavior) said he'd get between Asimov and women on escalators to deflect the inevitable goosing. There was literally a joke-ish letter about suggesting Asimov do a panel on the subject of posterior pinching at a scifi con.

[...]he was an alcoholic and drug addict (no one can really dispute this)[...]

No, but alcoholism and drug addiction ≠ bad person, necessarily.

 

[EnriqueH]

While I don’t condone spouses being unfaithful, I do approve of couples who swing because it’s based on mutual understanding and honesty.

If Gene “scored” as much as he has, but was an asshole or abusive , somebody would’ve said so by now.

I’ve read Whitney’s book. I’m sorry she had to go through that, but nobody should be conclusively pointing the finger at Roddenberry IMO. I certainly wasn’t under any impression that she was hinting it was Gene.

I can understand “suspecting”, but some people seem to have made up their minds.

 

[Maurice]

[...]I’ve read Whitney’s book. I’m sorry she had to go through that, but nobody should be conclusively pointing the finger at Roddenberry IMO. I certainly wasn’t under any impression that she was hinting it was Gene.[...]

Well, there's one additional piece of information that helps narrow down the likely candidate to a very small pool of Desilu men, but @Harvey and I are still researching that subject. We'll put that out there after we do some more legwork.

And can you please give us the source for the alleged Eileen Roddenberry affair(s)?

 

[Harvey]

If Gene “scored” as much as he has, but was an asshole or abusive , somebody would’ve said so by now.

Have you read Joel Engel's biography of Roddenberry?

Director Buzz Kulik's wife, Lorraine, told Engel that Eileen Roddenberry confided "about how her husband was mistreating her. Forced to overhear the nightly arguments, Lorraine had no reason not to believe the charges—some of them including physical abuse." (Engel, p.22)

And can you please give us the source for the alleged Eileen Roddenberry affair(s)?

I want to say the source for this is the David Alexander book, but I've been leafing through it and have been unable to find any sections that jive with my memory. I'd be curious to see a source for this.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

There is no proof of the Whitney situation.

What sort of definitive proof do you think we might find at this late date, with Whitney, Roddenberry, and Leonard Nimoy all gone? And do you know how difficult is to prove a rape case, when most of them amount to he said/she said?

Even subtracting the Whitney situation, Gene doesn't come across as a stellar human being.

Exactly.

It does bother me that he took credit for people’s work. That has to suck.

Yes. It's a scummy thing to do. And Roddenberry stole credit too often and too blatantly for it not to be conscious.

I never knew that he asked Eileen for a divorce at their daughter’s wedding. That does seem crappy.

Ya think?

His personal life is personal, but Roddenberry has been proven to be a completely unreliable source on many subjects. I have to wonder, if he was so great, why did he lie about so many things?

Excellent question.

How could he have been so horrendous a human being toward women if not one of them spoke out against him?

What. The. Fuck. REALLY?!? You cite three women that we know he had romantic relationships with, and if none of them ever said anything bad about him, that automatically means that everything was hunky dory?

Camille Cosby defended her husband, too. It doesn't mean that Bill Cosby wasn't scum.

Well, I just don’t like it when people judge his personal life without knowing all the facts.

There are a lot of facts about Roddenberry's life out there, and I've done my homework on them. He cheated on both his wives. He cheated on his mistresses. He cheated others out of the money they were rightfully due. He consciously told lies about other people. He went back on his word to friends and colleagues multiple times. And he and the lawyer that worked for him during the beginning of TNG alienated his old friends Robert Justman, D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, and around 30 writers in the first season. That is not normal.

I mean, do the fucking math. Roddenberry did a LOT of bad shit. I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that when someone does that much bad shit and makes no effort to ever make amends, they're a bad person.

I think we know enough of the facts to get a good gauge on the type of person Roddenberry was. He was an adulterer (no one can really dispute this), he was an alcoholic and drug addict (no one can really dispute this) and he took credit for others work (no one can really dispute this, just look at the creator credit for TNG).

Everything we know doesn't add up to a flattering image.

Exactly.

I wouldn't want anyone to judge me based on some stunts I pulled in my youth.

Gene Roddenberry was 45 years old when Star Trek went on the air. That's not "stunts in his youth." That's a middle aged man who should know how to fucking behave.

If Gene “scored” as much as he has, but was an asshole or abusive , somebody would’ve said so by now.

So because no one came forward (or more accurately, because we haven't personally heard about someone coming forward), everything is automatically A-OK? Do you have any concept of how difficult it is for someone to come forward about sexual abuse, let alone go public about it? Let alone go public about it with a publicly beloved man?

How favorable was your impression of Bill Cosby in September 2014? How does that compare to what you think of him now? What's changed between then and now?

I’ve read Whitney’s book. I’m sorry she had to go through that, but nobody should be conclusively pointing the finger at Roddenberry IMO. I certainly wasn’t under any impression that she was hinting it was Gene.

The. Polished. Stone.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

 

[EnriqueH]

Wow.

I don’t see how you guys can be so passionate about something you can’t possibly prove.

Bill Cosby had a TON of women come out against him. Harvey Weinstein too. Gene Roddenberry had....zero.

The only people that hate Roddenberry are writers.

I’ll tell you the name of the book. Think it was the last Roddenberry biography. EDIT: “The Impossible Has Happened” by Lance Parkin.

Yes, I read Engel’s book. Very negative just like Alexander’s was very positive. Reality, to paraphrase Kirk, is somewhere in between probably.

 

[Harvey]

Yes, I read Engel’s book. Very negative just like Alexander’s was very positive. Reality, to paraphrase Kirk, is somewhere in between probably.

I would say Engel’s book is needlessly nasty, but you asked about abuse claims, so...

Alexander tried to paper over all of Gene’s flaws in his book, to middling success. Alexander’s primary vocation was as a stage magician, not as a biographer, and it shows.

In the final analysis, neither ‘94 biography is very good, and the less said about Parkin’s glorified Wikipedia article, the better. (Seriously, he did zero primary source research, and has the gall to claim this as a virtue.)

The Gene Roddenberry centennial is coming right up, and would be a great opportunity for a new, more nuanced, and better researched history of his life and career.

Bill Cosby had a TON of women come out against him. Harvey Weinstein too. Gene Roddenberry had....zero.

Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein are still alive, and are among the most prolific #MeToo offenders. Gene Roddenberry died in 1991, almost thirty years ago. Cosby and Weinstein both got away with a multitude of crimes for decades before the stories about their behavior broke. And while they eventually faced charges, many other men in positions of power have not. For example did any major obituaries for Kirk Douglas even mention the claims of sexual assault (and worse) levied against him over the years? Hell, a Washington Post reporter was recently suspended for some entirely factual tweets about Kobe Bryant’s behavior!

 

[diankra]

Roddenberry put a lot of effort into bigging himself up, even taking credit for others' efforts. Once he was gone it was inevitable that his overinflated reputation would be pulled down.
Reality is, probably, a bit of a visionary, but nowhere as great as one as he liked to pretend. And as a person, probably not that nice, aside from his attitudes to women some of his 'japes' seem like juvenile bullying. But people don't have to be nice to do good work, or arrange for others to do so.

 

[EnriqueH]

I would say Engel’s book is needlessly nasty, but you asked about abuse claims, so...

Alexander tried to paper over all of Gene’s flaws in his book, to middling success. Alexander’s primary vocation was as a stage magician, not as a biographer, and it shows.

In the final analysis, neither ‘94 biography is very good, and the less said about Parkin’s glorified Wikipedia article, the better. (Seriously, he did zero primary source research, and has the gall to claim this as a virtue.)

The Gene Roddenberry centennial is coming right up, and would be a great opportunity for a new, more nuanced, and better researched history of his life and career.



Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein are still alive, and are among the most prolific #MeToo offenders. Gene Roddenberry died in 1991, almost thirty years ago. Cosby and Weinstein both got away with a multitude of crimes for decades before the stories about their behavior broke. And while they eventually faced charges, many other men in positions of power have not. For example did any major obituaries for Kirk Douglas even mention the claims of sexual assault (and worse) levied against him over the years? Hell, a Washington Post reporter was recently suspended for some entirely factual tweets about Kobe Bryant’s behavior!

Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile still have accusers well after they died.

Roddenberry, none.

 

[Harvey]

Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile still have accusers well after they died.

Roddenberry, none.

...okay, then.

 

[Maurice]

Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile still have accusers well after they died.

Roddenberry, none.

...that we are aware of.

But we live in a different world now. Women are a lot more likely, though many still hold back, from bringing such things to light. Let’s remember that Roddenberry died basically right on the heels of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing and all the incredible backlash that was thrown at Anita Hill. That’s the kind of world we lived in then, where women were understandably far more reticent to speak up. So I don’t think a lack of accusations really proves anything either way.

And you only have to sexually assault someone once to be a sexual assaulter.

But there’s really no denying that Roddenberry was a complete tool insofar as women were concerned. Even amongst the women who say nice things about him they often comment on his lecherous nature.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Bill Cosby had a TON of women come out against him. Harvey Weinstein too. Gene Roddenberry had....zero.

So one probable rape and several other instances of sexual harassment are okay if the guy created a show you liked. Got it.

The man died more than 28 years ago. That puts any probable victims he had at around age 60 at minimum. Susan Sackett is 76. Nichelle Nichols is 87. Eileen Roddenberry passed away two years ago. Grace Lee Whitney passed away nearly three years ago. Majel Barrett passed away 12 years ago. So yeah, any potential victims of GR who might be out there are either very advanced in age and don't want to open that can of worms or have passed away by this point.

But nobody publicly coming forward isn't the same thing as nothing ever happening.

Reality is, probably, a bit of a visionary, but nowhere as great as one as he liked to pretend.

"You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will."

I suspect that this speech was much closer to Roddenberry's true feelings than any of his "Oh, we're going to solve all of our problems in the future" pablum.

 

[Lance]

For what it's worth, it seems that near the end of his life, Roddenberry did have something of an epiphany. I recall a set of interviews around TNG's second season where he finally admitted to his womanizing, in particular, as well as his drug use, but used them as examples of why he was always so adamant that humanity would be better than that in the future. He knew he was no saint, and hoped future people would be better than he had been. And, yes, it doesn't rehabilitate the man, but it does show a sense of realism and humility in him, that in many ways, he finally recognised that he was not wholly worthy of the cult of perfection that he had built around himself.

I tend to prefer to see Roddenberry as a unique and gifted visionary thinker, an ideas man as it were, and a competent television producer, but not a particularly great writer, or human being.

Nevertheless, his optimistic 'vision' is undeniably the underpining for what made Star Trek stand out from all the other dystopian sci-fi, and even in darker Star Trek works in the past made by people other than Roddenberry, it was always there as a foundation. Until Discovery and Picard abandoned it, I hadn't realized just how important that vision was. And whatever his faults as an individual, I respect that he really did hope humanity could be better, and saw Star Trek as his vehicle for those beliefs. I do respect that. I respect the vision, if not the man who espoused it.

GR had a serious affliction that is prevalent in Los Angeles... being a Hollywood producer.

Truth, and a truth that has existed for as long as Hollywood has been a movie making machine. And, even in this post-Weinstein era, don't think for a minute the same shit isn't still going on, people are likely just being a lot more careful how they go about it.

 

[EnriqueH]

Sounds more like a witch-hunt to me.

He may have been a womanizer but that’s not the same as a sexual assaulter.

Who accused him of harassment?

 

[EnriqueH]

You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will."

That’s kinda funny if Zefram Cochran was a metaphor for Gene. I like that.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Who accused him of harassment?

See the Gary Lockwood story that Maurice shared above. Lockwood brought his girlfriend in to audition for Roddenberry and she ran out of the room when Roddenberry tried to kiss her. How is that not harassment? And if you're thinking that's just hearsay, why would Lockwood or his girlfriend make something like that up? What's in it for them?

But really, there's not much point in us continuing this conversation if you're just going to continue to shrug off every story and piece of evidence about Roddenberry's bad behavior with an "I dunno, I don't really see it" and demanding an unrealistic standard of proof. It seems like you already made up your mind about this before you started the thread.

That’s kinda funny if Zefram Cochran was a metaphor for Gene. I like that.

As Nebusj said here in a 2008 thread...

Yeah, I mean, Cochrane, as First Contact presented him, was a kind of shabby, besotted, womanizing, manipulative jerk who had a really great idea, gathered a small group together to carry it out, and parlayed that into something which became an exciting and surprising success, in the process creating a caste of people who would admire him as a visionary humanitarian with a design for making a grand new world.

Now who could ever see in Gene Roddenberry a kind of shabby, besotted, womanizing, manipulative jerk who had a really great idea, gathered a small group together to carry it out, and parlayed that into something which became an exciting and surprising success, in the process creating a caste of people who would admire him as a visionary humanitarian with a design for making a grand new world? They're obviously nothing alike.

 

[EnriqueH]

Like I said, it sounds like a witch-hunt.

All you have are suspicions. 80 episodes of beautiful women as guest stars including the first couple of seasons of TNG, and TMP.

Where are the accusations? When did Roddenberry do this to Lockwood’s girlfriend?

 

[Maurice]

It’s in Lockwood’s memoir.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

All you have are suspicions. 80 episodes of beautiful women as guest stars including the first couple of seasons of TNG, and TMP.

When did anyone in this thread cite beautiful women being guest stars on TOS, TNG, and TMP as being evidence of Roddenberry's behavior? Casting attractive people is just how Hollywood operates, and now you're just making up arguments that nobody here has made because you find those easier to refute.

Maurice, Harvey, myself, and others in this thread have ALL cited stories that others have told about Roddenberry and his behavior over the years, along with our sources. I linked to ALL of my sources in the column I wrote on the Atomic Junk Shop that I linked to in my very first post in this thread. It's all there if you want to bother doing the reading. But you're obviously not even reading this thread closely enough to retain any of the things that have been said multiple times already.

You asked why some people here don't like Gene Roddenberry. Several of us told you exactly why we don't think much of him, and you just keep saying, "It sounds like a witch hunt to me."

I'm done here.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

it sounds like a witch-hunt.

It really doesn't. That's just an opinion you have.

You are free to encourage people to adhere to the facts, I suppose. But that doesn't make your opinions factual.

Another example of a non-factual opinion:

If Gene “scored” as much as he has, but was an asshole or abusive , somebody would’ve said so by now.

In my opinion, it seems like you are trying to police what people post about Gene Roddenberry.