Roasting Roddenberry
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
The way you're coming across is that no information is good enough to determine that Roddenberry wasn't a great human being.
Anyone have a 10 foot pole that I can touch this thread with? 
I have one here my Lord...
JB
JB
The feeling is mutual. I don’t have a problem with people thinking Roddenberry wasn’t a great guy, but I do have a problem taking it to the point of calling him a sexual predator, which is extreme.
I'm not a juror in either a criminal or civil trial, I am a human being looking at the preponderance of evidence from over the decades. From my point-of-view, Roddenberry was likely a monster in the vein of someone like Harvey Weinstein, who was protected by the social mores of the times.
I still love Star Trek.
Last edited:
Harvey, not Howard!
D’oh! Fixing now!
Exactly. No evidence. You’re on a witch hunt, pal. Good luck with that.
Harvey, could p. 56 in David Alexander's book be what you're thinking of? It mentions something about Eileen and a girl friend going to the drive-in picking up cadets only 2 days after Gene and Eileen were married.
No one is stopping you from continuing your worship of Roddenberry. But, someday you’ll put the pieces together like many other folks have.
Oh, really? It doesn't seem that way to me:
@Maurice can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's clear to me that he said things were going in circles, since you asked, "What evidence?" after people were already giving you the reasons why they thought the way they did.
In any case, accusing people of being on a witch hunt isn't just an "exchanging of ideas." Neither is just ignoring what they're saying (asking ,"What evidence?" after they've already been engaged in good faith discussion, explaining their position to you).
That’s exactly what I was thinking of, thank you.
Reading that passage again, it’s clear the source (Mary Elisabeth Mèsny, the wife of one of Roddenberry’s pals on base, who shared an apartment with Eileen for 4 months) had quite a bone to pick to pick with the first Mrs. Roddenberry. In less than two pages, she claims:
- Eileen was pushy and “spoiled.”
- Eileen reneged on her promise to split food costs, opting to contribute nothing and eat Mary’s food instead.
- Eileen irritated her by handling the San Antonio heat by sitting around completely nude in the apartment.
- Eileen “wasn’t very bright,” not once opening a book or a magazine the entire time.
- And the aforementioned story about Eileen and another friend picking up a couple of cadets and going to the drive-in when Gene wasn’t around.
It's a well known fact, common knowledge even, that Roddenberry was no gifted visionary. He was a hack writer who got lucky with Star Trek, had no other success in his career, took credit for the work of others and yes, was offensively lecherous in a professional setting. Had he lived he'd have been sitting right next to Harvey Weinstein.
But if you want to think he's some godlike enlightened utopian visionary, that's your right. There's no law against deluded idolatry.
Gene Roddenberry built up his own stature to the point being a near-mythological figure for a while there. The authors of Star Trek non-fiction carried water for him, and fans in the '70s bought into it completely. This worsened the reaction to his moral downfall, because now his wrongdoing wasn't just wrong, it also made his fans feel like fools. And people don't like that.
And if you'd actually read what I wrote you'll notice I never once accused Roddenberry of anything here, I simply cited what I do know various sources have stated about his character.
My previous comment alluded to the reality that your endlessly repetitive weak-ass refutation is to respond to any and all data points with "witch hunt", something we routinely hear from another broken record playing on Pennsylvania Ave. That's not argument, it's lazy deflection.
And have been and never shall be your "pal".
Is it? He was in a position of power as Star Trek's showrunner, the actresses he fondled and fucked were not!
He was a pig and I don't feel bad calling him that.
He was also a habitual liar when it came to him being a "visionary", he claimed NBC didn't like a female first officer which was a lie, he took credit for having an inclusive bridge crew that featured minorites when that was a result of NBC requesting minority crew members on the bridge, Roddenberry's crews in both pilots were very white and those are just two examples of the top of my head.
Roddenberry was a mediocre writer at best who got lucky that other people took his basic idea and shaped it into the thing we love. He stumbled into success and then milked it for what it was worth at the expense of others, I have very little respect for him.
Similar threads
