Roddenberry was a dirtbag

[TheLonelySquire]

I think in the long run his contributions to the world outweigh whatever negatives might be ascribed to him.

Tell that to his first wife and also to Majel Barrett. Then again, she knew he was a dirt bag when she was having an affair with him during marriage #1 so she's really no better than he was. Note to Majel: As you sow so shall you reap.

I wouldn't feel sorry for Majel - She took two of his unfinished proposals - got other producers to flesh them out, then reaped the profits from their production and broadcast (aka 'Earth Final Conflict' and 'Andromeda). Majel ALSO knew what she was getting into too; as she started out as "The other woman."

Lastly, although GR liked to claim Majel was cut as 'Number 1' because the network execs "didn't want a woman in a Command position on the bridge because audiences won't accept it..."; I also have read that these execs KNEW he was sleeping with and had a long term relationship with her, and it more boiled down to them saying:

"Honestly Gene, she's a mediopcre actress for a lead and we're also just not going to hire your girlfriend." (Also there was the fact that if the relationship went south; they'd have the nightmare of a lead being the recent 'Ex' of the producer...Not good for a new and VERY expensive to produce show).

I understand your point about not feeling sorry for her. I have a hard time feeling sorry for her. I am speaking of a personal code of honor. Some people think it makes you a man to be a philanderer. It doesn't. It makes you a child.

I don't seek to disparage his Trek legacy. As I said above he was a visionary and a great salesman. He just was very immature in this area and I was stunned after rereading the book after a number of years.

 

[moogybaby]

Psychologically, I wonder if Gene's "perfection of humanity in the future" spiel was driven, in part by his own imperfections and failings in the present.

Either way, he was a pretty scummy guy from ALL accounts.

 

[Triskelion]

I don't subscribe to labels.

 

[Esteban]

Assuming here that the glass house from which the OP casts stones is spic and span.

Roddenberry had many faults, dutifully recorded by many--but mostly after he died.

He also created, sold, and produced Star Trek. He had help in all three areas, sure, but he's the guy who did it.

"Low moral fiber"? Who's to say? I think a few Drusillas along the way can spice up any man's marriage, but that's just my opinion.

I would never put forth the notion that I am perfect. Far from it. However, cheating on my wife is not one of my failings. That, and the fact that Gene reveled in his adultery show him to be extremely immature as well.

I take nothing away from the man's greatness and without him we would not have the greatest adventure show in television history. He was a visionary in this regard and deserves all the accolades he receives from Star Trek.

Now, who's to say he was a man of weak moral fiber? I think it's pretty obvious and I am sure he's had to answer for this.

Then again, since you advocate multiple transgressions of adultery I'm not sure you understand the damage it can do. May I ask if you are married yourself?

You may ask.

[said in my most curly-rugged TWOK-esque Shatnerian way]

Seriously, I was once, but although I advocate multiple partners, I also believe that the necessary deceit that goes along with that behavior, in a marriage, is bad karma.

So I'm not now.

But back to GR, he clearly stated many times that he lived by his own moral code. What's that line of his about "liking to dip his wick"? So while it was certainly big-time rationalization on his part, he kept the hypocrisy to a minimum.

Majel certainly knew all about his "transgressions", and apparantly accepted them.

But the real can of worms that you, the OP, opened (summed up in your "dirtbag" title), was that you harshly judged Roddenberry based on your own moral code. Regardless of whether that code is subscribed to by a large number of people, doing the Scarlett Letter thing is supposed to be anti Christian, anti American, and certainly anti Star Trek.

So I cringed and posted.

 

[KayArr]

Sexual mores differ from society to society, and are really about making sure that the next generation is cared for, anyway. But I'm pretty sure that the moral code of every society would state that you don't write song lyrics that'll never be used to steal half the royalties for a television theme. Come on, now--just say it, that was WRONG.

Roddenberry deserves to be praised for Trek and criticized for taking credit for ideas and music and like that. Why can't we do both?

 

[Vonstadt]

Lying is bad

Cheating is bad *see lying*

GR was many things but he was never a boy scout.

His personal life never influenced me nor did I even care to know about it. It was his personal life.

Do I find him unethical and immoral? Depends on what you wish to compare it too. His lifestyle was NOT the most unethical and immoral thing to have exsisted on this planet.

I am a tad concerned about the tone of some of these posts, and I hardly an apologist for GR. I actually never fully bought into the 'perfect view' of the future (even taken to the extreme in TNG's first season or so(no flames I do like TNG too) but Im gonna take a bit of advice I was once told as a kid.

"Judge not..."

Im sure the rest can be guessed. The guy brought us Star Trek and others made it great. He was but one artist that made a masterpiece and he was human.

Just like the /rest/ of us.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I resent any implication that Gene Roddenberry was, like the rest of us, a human being

 

[Jon1701]

I don't care if he was a dick.

You know what, I'm a dick sometimes. Big deal.

I'll cut the guy some slack, no matter what he did (and he did some pretty shitty things) - he had an idea for a tv show called Star Trek. We can argue about who created what and who came up with what and who slept with who all day long.

Bottom line - he came up with the idea. He pulled it together. He got it running. He was the creator.

Were it not for Gene Roddenberry, I would not be typing out this post on an internet message board some 40 years later. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

 

[Dayton3]

If I had a choice, I would prefer that the people who create things I like to have similiar moral values as I.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I don't subscribe to labels.

What does that mean exactly? You have no opinion? Or if you do, what is your opinion on him?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Assuming here that the glass house from which the OP casts stones is spic and span.

Roddenberry had many faults, dutifully recorded by many--but mostly after he died.

He also created, sold, and produced Star Trek. He had help in all three areas, sure, but he's the guy who did it.

"Low moral fiber"? Who's to say? I think a few Drusillas along the way can spice up any man's marriage, but that's just my opinion.

I would never put forth the notion that I am perfect. Far from it. However, cheating on my wife is not one of my failings. That, and the fact that Gene reveled in his adultery show him to be extremely immature as well.

I take nothing away from the man's greatness and without him we would not have the greatest adventure show in television history. He was a visionary in this regard and deserves all the accolades he receives from Star Trek.

Now, who's to say he was a man of weak moral fiber? I think it's pretty obvious and I am sure he's had to answer for this.

Then again, since you advocate multiple transgressions of adultery I'm not sure you understand the damage it can do. May I ask if you are married yourself?

You may ask.

[said in my most curly-rugged TWOK-esque Shatnerian way]

Seriously, I was once, but although I advocate multiple partners, I also believe that the necessary deceit that goes along with that behavior, in a marriage, is bad karma.

So I'm not now.

But back to GR, he clearly stated many times that he lived by his own moral code. What's that line of his about "liking to dip his wick"? So while it was certainly big-time rationalization on his part, he kept the hypocrisy to a minimum.

Majel certainly knew all about his "transgressions", and apparantly accepted them.

But the real can of worms that you, the OP, opened (summed up in your "dirtbag" title), was that you harshly judged Roddenberry based on your own moral code. Regardless of whether that code is subscribed to by a large number of people, doing the Scarlett Letter thing is supposed to be anti Christian, anti American, and certainly anti Star Trek.

So I cringed and posted.

Thanks for following up.

Basically, you cheated and are now divorced, right? (Please correct me if I am mistaken)

I never said he was a hypocrite. I also am not convinced that while MB accepted his transgressions. While she was playing the part of the other woman she was as bad as he was. Many times these women think they can change the adulterer. They think that it will be different with him. That's not exactly clear here.

And yes, I did offer an opinion based on the man's actions. I didn't condemn him. That's not ny job.

 

[Esteban]

Thanks for following up.

Basically, you cheated and are now divorced, right? (Please correct me if I am mistaken)

I never said he was a hypocrite. I also am not convinced that while MB accepted his transgressions. While she was playing the part of the other woman she was as bad as he was. Many times these women think they can change the adulterer. They think that it will be different with him. That's not exactly clear here.

And yes, I did offer an opinion based on the man's actions. I didn't condemn him. That's not ny job.

No, I did not, and yes, I am. I did, however, have lust in my heart, as Jimmy Carter would say.

I'm afraid by posting "Roddenberry was a dirtbag" that you DID indeed condemn him. That's one of the problems with moralists: they can't help but condemn everyone else who does not follow their views.

Look, I'm not picking on you, and I applaud your strongly held convictions. But we need to leave a place in our universe for those who don't. So as a humanist, I try to walk that mile in the other man's shoes before I make prejudicial pronouncements.

At least, that's what Roddenberry said.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

No, I did not, and yes, I am. I did, however, have lust in my heart, as Jimmy Carter would say.

I'm afraid by posting "Roddenberry was a dirtbag" that you DID indeed condemn him. That's one of the problems with moralists: they can't help but condemn everyone else who does not follow their views.

Look, I'm not picking on you, and I applaud your strongly held convictions. But we need to leave a place in our universe for those who don't. So as a humanist, I try to walk that mile in the other man's shoes before I make prejudicial pronouncements.

At least, that's what Roddenberry said.

It's all good, brother. No offense intended and none taken. Roddenberry however, remains a dirt bag.

 

[KeepOnTrekking]

Gee, I guess Gene Roddenberry committed the worst crime possible. How did Guinan put it once? "You failed to live up to someone else's expectations."

Everybody has their strong points...and their worst faults. Nobody's perfect.

As for the religious crowd looking down their noses at him, I offer this thought to ponder, "Hate the sin. Love the sinner."

For all his faults, Gene did leave us with a lot to love about his life that he left behind in his Star Trek legacy.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

How did Guinan put it once? "You failed to live up to someone else's expectations."

As for the religious crowd looking down their noses at him, I offer this thought to ponder, "Hate the sin. Love the sinner."

For all his faults, Gene did leave us with a lot to love about his life that he left behind in his Star Trek legacy.

1. Who's Guynan?

2. Who said Gene is not worthy of love? Of course he is.

3. Yes he did.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Guinan, bartender from TNG. Played by Whoppie Goldberg.

 

[Sulu's Lover]

"My stomach tastes burning"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If one listens long enough to the morally righteous one discovers that all they have to offer is that no one interesting - no one who has ever accomplished anything - is in Heaven.

Of course, the Romans called Christianity "the slave religion" and there were more reasons for that than the obvious.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

If one listens long enough to the morally righteous one discovers that all they have to offer is that no one interesting - no one who has ever accomplished anything - is in Heaven.

Roddenberry "could be" in Heaven, but Star Trek doesn't get his ticket punched.

 

[SciFi75]

Yeah, I've never understood the Roddenberry cult of personality, myself. I give him points for putting the thing together in the first place. I give him points for packaging it and selling it to the network.

I can't give him much credit for being an overly imaginative writer of SF-flavored television; 'Captain Kirk has a fistfight with God' wears thin fast, and 'crew visits planet which curiously resembles something out of Earth's history and can therefore be conveniently shot using sets, costumes, and props that just happened to be lying about the studio backlot' is a clever conceit from a TV production point of view but a little weak in SF/literary merit. I think the only one of GR's storytelling peccadillos that does not grow tiresome with me is his fascination with sex and beautiful women, because hey, I'm a guy.

And no, I can't give him a lot of credit as an admirable human being, for reasons already cited in the OP.

He was a TV producer, and one of middling quality at best; he was far better as a salesman. Seems to me that he got the message that no one was too interested in buying what he had to sell (literally and figuratively) after TOS; all he had to his credit was a string of pilots that never got off the ground. He caught lightning in a bottle with Trek, and the limit of his 'vision' seems to me to be that he recognized that people did like Star Trek, and since actually producing television programs was no longer a steady paycheck for him he could parlay being The Great Bird Of The Galaxy, The Visionary Creator Of Star Trek into a paying prospect. So he reinvented himself as the Great Humanist Dreamer.

The thing is, the vast majority of what I like about Star Trek happens to be stuff that other people dreamed up--Gene Coon, Dorothy Fontana, Theodore Sturgeon, et. al. If you want to know what pure 100% Roddenberry Trek looks like, watch "The Cage" (pretty good, but with clunky bits here and there), TMP (I like it, and a lot of other folks do, but it's far from universally beloved), and first season TNG (well, er, least said soonest mended). And I think part of that is because Roddenberry started buying into his own PR. There's kind of a steady downward slope you can plot by connecting those three points, and I suspect it's inversely proportional (if that's not mixing mathematical metaphors too egregiously) to how much he believed he was The Great Visionary. Star Trek went from being (intended as) a workable idea for an entertaining TV show, with a bit of substance at its core (Hornblower in Space/Wagon Train to the Stars, with the added wrinkle of using SF concepts to tell stories about socially relevant issues under the network radar) to being some kind of weird Gospel According To Gene about how wonderful and perfect (and therefore devoid of dramatic conflict or much useful storytelling potential) everyone will be in the future.

I guess I can't blame the man. Given the choice, I'd far rather be perceived by the public as this wonderful visionary prophet than as a womanizing, pill-popping boozehound of a TV producer, too.

But we all know that GR was only one of those two things, no matter how much he'd have preferred we believe otherwise (and how much some people still want to see him).

Hating your avatar, lovin' your post

I'm rereading Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (Solow and Justman) and while he certainly did have a vision, he also was a complete lowlife scumbag.

How many women did he cheat on while married twice? Countless. His boozing and pill popping are legendary. He also was proud of his philandering ways.

He was just a man of low, low moral fiber.

Just sad.

I'd love to hang out with THAT Gene far more than with Utopia-Gene(tm), seriously, sounds like a fun guy

And this is why I weep for society's moral values.

You weep for morals using Roddenberry as a comparison when we have the ultimate moral breaker sitting in the White House?