For example, the old "Spock being too demonic" story is now dismissed outright as a lie, just because he lied about other totally unrelated things. That's not fair or impartial.
Roddenberry did so many underhanded things that I simply see him as a very competent TV producer and nothing more.
A few things that Roddenberry is known to have done...
* Cheated on his first wife with Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols. Then cheated on Barrett after marrying her.
* Wrote non-sensical lyrics to Alexander Courage's music so he could claim half of any money Courage made off of it.
* Stole the story for
Tomorrow is Yesterday from producer Bob Justman.
Those really just scratch the surface.
I quit subscribing to the "Roddenberry is a God" club many, many years ago. The man was simply out to make a buck.
Why would anyone ever belong to the "Roddenberry is a God" club in the first place? I can understand why someone who once had that mindset would eventually view roddenberry in an overly cynical light. It would feel like a betrayal (even though we know that it obviously wasn't a betrayal)
You decide to buy into the crap to begin with, and now that you know better, you dismiss him as completely untrustworthy? Why is it one extreme or another?
What does your post have to do with that quote? Are you saying that since Roddenberry did underhanded things (nobody denies this) that the story about spock being demonic isn't true? That's how it comes off.
Just because someone has lied before and been caught for it doesn't mean you automatically dismiss everything else they say whenever there is a conflict of information.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's not impartial or unbiased at all and it goes on all the time here.
It seems as if one isn't totally down and cynical on Roddenberry, one gets thrown into the "Roddenberry is god" club.
It has gotten to the point that some fans are so bitter about some of Roddenberry's lies, that they cynically dismiss anything he said that someone else might not have agreed with.
No.
As more information has been made available by producers, writers and executives who contributed centrally to TOS and TNG, people have grown sensibly skeptical of any Roddenberry story which lionizes him, minimizes the contribution of others and/or casts those who disagreed with him or refused him as short-sighted and conservative and dim. Many of his stories never did make a lot of sense when one placed
Star Trek in the context of other things that were being done by the studio and networks, and since we now have the testimony of other eyewitnesses and sometimes documentary evidence that contradicts GR it's entirely reasonable to take any anecdote he recounted with a grain of salt.
You start your post off with "No", but nothing you said following that contradicts what I said.
Are you seriously denying that there are some fans who bought into the "roddenberry is god"(for lack of a better word), and then as a result of having their preconception shattered, have become bitter and cynical toward him?
There are definitely fans that have become overly cynical toward roddenberry due to lionizing him in the past. That doesn't mean YOU are like that. That doesn't mean EVERY fan is like that or MOST fans. Obviously. But these types of fans clearly exist and post here.
The spock was too demonic story is a perfect example. There is nothing to demonstrate this story was a lie. There is even evidence that it was a true story(Airbrushed photo) and yet people in this very thread quickly lumped it in with the rest of the lies. completely impartial, and that kind of discussion only muddies the issue. it doesn't help anyone.
I assumed that much from the beginning...)
