Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2022-03-02 07:09 pm
[ SECRET POST #5535 ]
⌈ Secret Post #5535 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #792.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-03-03 12:34 am (UTC)(link)At the same time, certain parts of the fanbase of the show essentially deified Gene. There was this attitude, which he encouraged, that he was not just a TV writer but a great futurist and moral thinker. And this attitude was used as a cudgel in arguments about Star Trek canon, and still is to some extent - any part of Star Trek that some fan didn't look could be written off as "not part of Gene's vision". And especially for the 90s shows - on the one hand you have Gene being responsible for many problems of the early years of TNG, while at the same time people use Gene as a symbol of everything right with Star Trek and why modern Star Trek didn't count. So I think that bred a lot of resentment and dislike of Gene. And that led people to overlook the real contributions which he did make because they had been magnified so far out of proportion.
Also, it seems that Roddenberry treated women badly. I don't think that's where the dislike of Roddenberry among some fans originated. But it's definitely played a role, especially in recent years.