Talk:Gene Roddenberry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Roddenberry's sentiments on religion

Reference is made to Roddenberry religion views in the section, "Personal Life," which is probably appropriate. However, the he said / she said statements regarding religious references in the "Star Trek" universe are probably inappropriate here, in Roddenberry's biography. Is not such discussion better placed in entries regarding "Star Trek?"--Jrwsaranac (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"I guess from that time it was clear to me that religion was largely nonsense, was largely magical, superstitious things. In my own teen life I just couldn't see any point in adopting something based on magic, which was obviously phony and superstitious. I stopped going to church as soon as it became possible to do things on my own as a teenager. I made up my mind that church, and probably largely the Bible, was not for me. I did not go back to even thinking much about it. If people need to do that, ignore them and maybe they will ignore you and you can go on with your own life. (Alexander, Star Trek Creator, p. 37)

"My second wife Majel Lee (Hudec) and I were both raised Protestant but well before ever meeting had both left the Protestant Church in favor of non-sectarian beliefs which included respect for all other religions, but emphasizing the concept of God as too great and too encompassing to be explained and appreciated by any single system of belief. Some aspects of Buddhism express some of our beliefs but also do some aspects of the New and Old Testaments as well as other books and philosophies." (Alexander, Star Trek Creator, p. 422).

"It seems to me more and more with each passing year and each new massacre (as many perpetrated by Christians as anyone else) that the real villain is religion --- at least religion as generally practiced by people who somehow become sure that they and only they know the 'real' answer. How few humans there are that seem to realize that killing, much less hating, their fellow humans in the name of their 'god' is the ultimate kind of perversion.

At any rate, I've elected to believe in a God which is so far beyond our conception and real understanding that it would be nonsense to do anything in its name other than perhaps to revere all life as being part of that unfathomable greatness." (Alexander, Star Trek Creator, p. 480)

Alexander, David. Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry. 1994, New York: NY: Penguin Group.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

comments

There seems to be a feud going on between 68.3.136.97 and others over the inclusion of the paragraph about Roddenberry's work ethics... -- Arteitle 04:28 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think "haigographic" is a typo, so I corrected it. 143.231.249.141 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)August 2, 2006

Trekker1 here... I worked on the show and with Gene Roddenberry. He did not leave the show in the third season. He worked right up until his death. And why post mean-spirited things about arguements with the studio? Is this really what should be in a biography? I'm not sure how to get into this chat room -- hope this is the way. I will continue to monitor his bio for accuracy and appropriate commentary.

Wikipedia is not meant to be mean. We try to collect "facts" on a neutrale point of view. There are a lot of sources that say that Gene was quite controversial. e.g.: http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/Books_Gene%20Roddenberry.html or just read the autobiographies of Kirk, Spock, Uhura.... Wikipedia makes exactly the difference to the rest of the internet/books/voices that it shows positive and negative things of everything. You can not be neutral if you don't state the negative sides of a person. Please help us to make this article "true" by not only deleting but also contributing. Thanks, Fantasy 06:12 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Trekker1 again... In the interest of accuracy, you should not put that Gene "quit half way through the third season" of the Next Generation. This is simply not true. He never quit, and worked for almost two more seasons, contributing right up until his death in 1991. He reviewed all the scripts personally, attended all production meetings, was frequently on the set, and even had a building dedicated to him on the Paramount lot. Other sources are simply not familiar with his life the way I was, nor did they work side by side with him the way I did. And I have already contributed to this article regarding the information on his first wife (who was originally omitted, as if their 26 years marriage hadn't even existed!). I have been watching and updating this for many years. He was a good man and doesn't deserve to have his legacy done with revisionism from people who were not there. The paragraph I've been deleted is SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

Wow, that is great, I am glad to know you. It is seldom that you can come across someone that had real contact with Gene and the STNG people. I envy you. I am not yet sure how we should go on with this, I just remember in Uhuras autobiographie that Gene was at the end (I don't know how long, weeks/years) quite pushed out of the films... I have read it some years ago, probably i mixed someting up. I will read it again, maybe I remember it wrong... Here you later, Fantasy 14:44 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

PS: Trekker1, there is one rule in Wikipedia that could help you a little bit: If you do something, put a comment in the "Summary" box, so that others know why/what you have done. Fantasy ;-)

Ttekker1: True or not it is very widely known that Roddenberry was muscled out of a position of great control part way through the third season of TNG. That doesn't mean he didn't continue working at all (if I recall he was still listed as an "Executive Producer" even though his editorial control was diminished when Rick Berman began taking over) but it does mean that per our NPOV policy we must state both of these interpretations in a neutral way. --mav 16:44 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Trekker1 here again: Gene was not "muscled out" in any way. It is true his health was beginning to decline, and he simply wasn't up to the task physically. He had final approval of everything for a few more years. By the fifth season, he wasn't able to work very much. Berman and Michael Piller were encouraged by Gene to carry on his legacy. Joel Engle's book is very inaccurate in many places, as he interviewed people who had grudges against Gene and were willing to say harsh (and often untrue) things; Joel never met Gene and didn't have any way of knowing what was and what wasn't accurate.

I am looking at the section regarding ST the Animated Series. Does the discussion regarding its "canon" status belong here? Given that this is a biographical entry about Gene Roddenberry, and given that there is actually some dispute as to who was actually behind the effort to move TAS to "non-canonical" status, does the gravitas of this issue, in the context of Roddenberry's life, rise to a sufficient level for inclusion here? I am inclined to remove it, and leave Star Trek "canon" discussions for more appropriate entries.--Jrwsaranac (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues

There's no problem with adding critical information to a biography, but it should be well documented, especially when there are charges of plagiarism. Just pointing to "books by so-and-so" or "speeches by so-and-so" is not proper documentation, and hand waving of the type "These claims are extremely well documented" has no place in an encyclopedia. Just the facts, please.

I have removed the allegation of a Roddenberry/Barrett affair. When did it take place and where is this documented? Roddenberry was later married to Barrett, after all. I've also removed:

Roddenberry's propensity for exaggerating his role in Star Trek is legendary and well known to scholars of the science-fiction community, and extremely well documented.

Pure fluff. Which exaggerations? Documented where? Details, please.

Also removed:

At the time of Roddenberry's death, almost all of his former co-workers were so angry at Roddenberry that they refused to go to his funeral.

Source? A Google search for "roddenberry funeral" turns up Wikipedia at a top spot.—Eloquence 19:09, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of these sources appear to be Joel Engel's biography ISBN 0-7868-6004-9. As far as the funeral, Engel says, "Irony explains why so few of those former fellow gods joined those who, on [the day of his funeral], had come to pay their final respects: They had no respect left to pay" (p. 12). Engel is extremely detailed and often cites sources, but he does seem to have something against Roddenberry. --Geoffrey 23:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The source for everything is here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671009745/qid=1112454809/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7706117-7242547?v=glance&s=books

Inside Star Trek the Real Story is a book by the two main guys besides Roddenberry who created the originally series, Bob Justman and another guy. It talks about how Gene Rodenberry would have sex with Uhura viewable in a window from the street, how he had sex with Yeomon Rand, how he put Barret in because he was having sex with her and the studio was pissed that he did that, he admitting to having a "serious case of pillow talk". This book also documents his exagerations about his role in star trek, such as refuting many things he said that he invented.

Father, a police officer???

Wasn't his father also a cop? -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, his father was also a cop, Gean cited this as a major reason why he spent many years as one -- FLJuJitsu 00:21, 06 Sept 2007 (UTC)

Biography

I think he also has a biography... or a part autobiography. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Space burial

why is there no mention of his notable burial in space?  ALKIVAR™ 00:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, There was a brief article in Space News (The paper, not the Canadian cable channel) in which Majel Barrett-Roddenberry announced that a portion of Gene's remains had been on the cargo manifest of an undisclosed shuttle mission. These remains were not left in orbit. If true tyhis would mean that Mr. Roddenberry has been to space twice, both times posthumously. I haven't posted it in the article because I have no corroboration. Enigmatick 17:20, 17 Nov 2005

I just finished watching the tribute to Gene Roddenberry in the DVD bonus section of Season Five of The Next Generation. His wife said that his ashes were taken up into space, and then there was a meeting some time later in Washington to get the ashes back. So he was not buried in space, his remains are on Earth. He just rode on the shuttle for a mission.

This would be like saying my dead Grandma was buried in a hearse. No, her remains rode in a hearse, but she was buried in a cemetery. So all references of Gene being "buried in space" should be changed to "his remains travelled into space" or something more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.118.157 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I "love it" how you guys refer to Gene's remains as a person. They are just his remains; the person ceased to exist when the person died. Please make clear distinctions of this. Children of the dragon (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

References

http://www.nndb.com/people/503/000022437/

Star Trek VI

The article says "According to the reference work The Star Trek Chronology, Roddenberry reportedly considered elements of the fifth and sixth Trek films to be apocryphal, though there is no indication that he wanted them removed from Trek canon."

I know this is true of the... cough... horrible Star Trek V, but (as I recall from Shatner's and Nimoy's books), Gene saw a finished Star Trek VI a week before his death and gave it his strong endorsement. Certainly, as a dedicated fan of Gene (not Berman), I can see why he might love the film, given its pacifist theme. I wouldn't change anything in this article without consensus, recognizing my bias, but I was curious if anybody knew anything about this? Xoloz 03:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The aforementioned quote from the article accurately reflects the asides written by Michael and Denise Okuda in The Star Trek Chronology and The Star Trek Encyclopedia about Roddenberry's feelings about aspects of those films. Regarding the sixth film, Roddenberry reportedly did not approve of the Starfleet characters exhibiting any attitude that could be analogous to racial prejudice, i.e. the attitude of Starfleet officers toward the Klingons ("Klingons would become the alien trash of the galaxy", "Did you see the way they ate?", "I hear only top of the line models can talk", "They're animals", "Let them die", et cetera). It was apparently not sufficient that those attitudes are shown to be wrong by the end of the film - Roddenberry apparently didn't think the characters should be exhibiting those attitudes at all.

I'm sure he objected because it conflicted with his utopian view of the future. If Starfleet officers were racist, even for a little awhile, then the Federation wouldn't be "perfect." 67.171.163.212 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"Roddenberry first studied to be a policeman for three years". Does this mean before he was a police officer after he studied for three years? He was a police officer, Eugene W. Roddenbery. He comunicated abit with FBI also. Refer you to this link: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/roddenberry_e.htm. -71.28.243.246 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That link also calls into question his dates of involvement with LAPD - the FBI page says he was still with the department in 1958. -Etoile 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest ignoring the intro paragraph on the link and head straight into the documents (the link called "Part 1").

My comments on said paragraph:

The paragraph in question:

In 1958 Eugene Roddenberry was a member of the Los Angeles Police Department. He along with other police officers tried to form a police association. Roddenberry was later the Chief of the Los Angeles City College Police Club.

Right now, I think that paragraph is based solely on the letters. The problems are:

(a) the letters aren't in chronological order. Hence why the paragraph claims that he was the Chief of the college police club...after being a police man. The particular letters, dated 1939-40, follow those letters from when he was in the police force.

(b) I think that the claim on him being part of the LAPD is from the second letter, the reply from J.E. Hoover. The date at the top is rather smudged, making the "2" look like an "8".

Both of those reasonings are, quite frankly, stupid. However, they work with the sources provided... and as 1939 is most certainly not after 1958... Nitjanirasu 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added some of the information from the link to the main article, under the "Personal Life" section. There's probably more that can be added, if anyone is so interested. Good find, Anon.! Nitjanirasu 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The atheist category was recently removed with the uncited rationale that he is a humanist, but this guy has been removing the atheist tag from A LOT of articles, so check up on it.Qrc2006 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is a strong word that I don't think applies in this case -- I'm sure Grazon really believes that Roddenberry was a humanist but not an atheist. However, I did a Google search and got over 15,000 hits with "+Roddenberry +atheist". He's on alot of atheist lists and he is even described as an atheist by the British Humanist Association. So, I put the category back in, and am notifying Grazon. Gaheris 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems unnatural that one sentence on his religious/a-religious life is clunked right next to one sentence about his death.

71.242.108.221

Possibly not vandalism, but close: 15:08, August 5, 2007, 71.242.108.221 made some edits which have detracted from the style of Wikipedia (inappropriate formatting, inappropriate subheadings, amongst other things.) Numerous subsequent edits have been made, so I haven't reverted anything. There's a lot to work through -- Anyone care to help? Techtoucian 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wit and Wisdom

The book Wit and Wisdom of Gene Roddenberry doesn't seem to actually exist. It is wrongly listed in some online catalogues, not in stock. [2] has it being a "lost book", which had been wrongly listed in catalogues some years ago. Furthermore it's still not available at roddenberry.com. Can't find good evidence of it existing under the name "The Wisdom of Gene Roddenberry", either. Some things claim it was released on April 30, 2006. Hmm. Morwen - Talk

Political views

Is this an omission, or just unknown? I just thought I should bring it up.--Occono 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Science Fiction Hall of Fame

Gene Roddenberry will be inducted into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame on June 16th, 2007. Under what currently existing subsection should this information be entered? Mawazi 06:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps legacy. Indicate a source as well. Xavcam 06:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

space "burial"

The business about being one of the first people to be "buried" in space is far too trivial to include in an opening paragraph and seems demeaning to the man. He was "buried" thusly I presume because he was notable; he isn't notable for that "burial" It would be better in a trivea section.

The Great Bird of the Galaxy

I've removed a misleading statment about the origins of linking this expression personally to Roddenberry. Stephen Whitfield, in his book "The Making of Star Trek", quotes first-season internal production memos in their entirety that make use of this (originally humorous) notion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PScooter63 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Roddenberry's opinion on UFOs

There is an interesting statement of Tracy Torme, as guest on C2C yesterday, that Roddenberry didn't believe in UFOs, which if true, I think should be worth mentioning in the article http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/04/09.html#recap 208.72.123.53 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. It would only be interesting to mention if he did believe in them, not if he didn't. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the shows?

Why aren't there any mentions of the other shows Roddenberry was creator of, such as Andromeda? --Son (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Familial Relationship?

Is there any information about a familial relationship between Gene and Seaborn Roddenbery? I have read that some branches of G. R.'s family used the variant spelling used by S. R., and the facial resemblance of the two is striking. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Corp/Air Force

This article says that Gene joined the Air Corp in 1941. It also says he joined the Army Air Force. Since the Air Corp became the Air Force in 1941, would anyone like to look this up? Which did he join? Bladeofgrass (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military School?

My father was born in 1953 and he told me that from the second grade to eighth grade, he went to military school in California. He told me that he was roomates with Gene Roddenberry. I have no idea if I can believe him or not, can someone verify that he went to a Military School in the 60's for me? Thank you, and if possible, reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackass2009 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "Trek"

The word Trek occurs in nearly every second sentence. Maybe a mention on it's Dutch/Afrikaans origins in "Die Groot Trek" is in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.156.187 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gene Roddenberry/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Gene Rodenberry has created many tv shows which have affected the lifes of many over the past 40 years and into the future, hence a medium rating, i considred a high but i'll let someone else decide. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)