So how awful is Gene Roddenberry?

[Robovski]

Gene created Trek, it's not even in dispute. He registered the name with the Writer's Guild of America March 11, 1964 as a 16-page pitch.

As for being awful, by this criteria most people of the past are increasingly awful. Gene wasn't a monster, he wasn't a saint either. Cheating around may have been more accepted by some but it's still cheating. Putting stupid lyrics so he can squeeze a bit more money out of the theme was shitty. He was also a combat pilot in WWII, commercial pilot and a police officer (like his father was) before becoming a freelance script writer. He had 3 children. He had an eventful life, and did some things people might call heroic even. It's not all good or all bad in a person's life and Gene is no different. I feel success and ''the biz'' may have had a corroding effect on his character, but one should not judge him by a single point in his life.

[Yukaphile]

Created, but others took it farther, yet people keep praising him as if he was responsible, when really, others had to come in and save the franchise from his own worst excesses.

And a lot of other people in the past were good too, or wouldn't be here and have the kind of society we do too - unless you think modern society sucks, in which case, I can't disagree with you. What did he do that was "heroic?" For me, his views on women move me past defending him. Especially when you have the contrast of other people demonizing victims and comparing them as morally equivalent to those who victimized them. Or would you defend what went on behind the scenes with You Can't Do That On Television? The guy in charge was clearly using his power to force boys into dresses as a means of punishment kink, and would give them Playboys on set and let them peek into the girls' dressing rooms, which later on those grown-up girls recalled with horror and humiliation. A thing does not cease being wrong just because it's in another time period. And that was the early 1980s, btw, so... there you go. Something way closer to "the modern era."

[LavarosVA]

For crying out loud we get it, Gene Roddenberry was a misogynist, I don't think anyone with half a brain would deny it. But that doesn't mean that was all there was too him, because people are for the most part, complicated.

Honestly it feels like you created this thread just to show off how in the right you are and it's getting rather tiresome.

[Robovski]

Judging people from the past by today's standards is an idiot's game where we gain nothing.

[Makeshift Python]

Judging people from the past by today's standards is an idiot's game where we gain nothing.

Especially since they've been dead for nearly 30 years. If you wanna rail against a creator of a popular icon, you should look into Ian Fleming's viewpoints on racial and gender politics. Like thinking giving women the right to vote lead to more homosexuals among men and women because gender norms became "confused". Or remarking that Koreans were "below apes". Not the most socially progressive fellow.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

It's not worth obsessing over the awfulness of millions of people you can't control, let alone someone who's long since dead. From my understanding Roddenberry was pretty typical of a tv exec in his time and place- I'm sure some had different faults, and some were better or worse. A detached appraisal is best not only for mustering whatever objectivity is possible, but also for your own sanity.

Although I do think it's justifiable to bring up Roddenberry's faults every now and then. The reason being that many people still worship at the altar of Roddenberry and treat him as a fearless visionary. It's not wrong to push back on some of the more hyperbolic praise and try to paint an accurate picture of the man. I's certainly possible to go too far either way.

Chuck has done a good job covering this when it comes to Trek's approach to money. There's certainly a decent number of fans who find Roddenberry's whole "Money won't exist in the utopian future" thing to be a bit unrealistic and smug. Roddenberry's hypocrisy in this regard is worth pointing out, and Chuck does so without getting unduly upset or belittling what he actually did accomplish.