Talk:Gene Roddenberry/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Personal Life section, religion comment doesn't hold up to scrutiny
I added a citation needed tag to a statement in this section asserting "religion and mystical thinking were not to be included" in either Star Trek or Star Trek: TNG. There were several episodes in both series that dealt with religion and mystical thinking, one of which was "Bread and Circuses" in the original show. That episode was a specific parallel with the rise of Christianity during Roman times, and even makes reference to "the Son of God". Regardless of Roddenberry's religious beliefs or lack thereof, the fact that this and other episodes exist clearly shows that statement to be false. It needs to be fixed before it gets changed to make it more accurate. grifterlake (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As I stated above, reference to Roddenberry's religious views here 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?" After all, TV shows are collaborative efforts, and any references to religion in the "Star Trek" canon may or may not reflect either Roddenberry's personal views or his preferences for how the ST world was to be portrayed.--Jrwsaranac (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- All the recent changes meld pretty well into a good statement for the personal life section. It covers his personal views regarding religion, his wish as to how those beliefs contributed to his artistic work, and how it actually played out on broadcast night. There is enough for the reader to understand the facts while not being steered to a specific conclusion. I say it's a significant improvement over the previous text. grifterlake (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to "star Trek V" from the religious views section, as it is not germane to the topic. Roddenberry had little to no input in the Trek movies after "star Trek The Motion Picture" (1979). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwsaranac (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Dead external link removal
Please see this diff to track down archival replacement links for this content. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The Making of Star Trek
I think this book deserves its own article. Is there a reason it doesnt have one? I believe its pretty important. amazon link provided.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles photo link broken
The edits that were done to add "Sr." to his birth name changed the name of his image in the article.
The link was, or should be: Gene_roddenberry_1976.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gene_roddenberry_1976.jpg
When "Sr." was added, the underscores were removed then "Sr." was again removed but the underscores were not restored.
98.228.235.228 (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Infobox "Resting place" param
The info box was left as:
"resting_place = Outer space (His remains were launched in a rocket. see article) "
This is entirely incorrect:
- The article states that some of his remains were shot into space on a space shuttle (correct - as confirmed by Majel in various interviews and news stories) and then returned to earth (correct).
- This leaves no remains in space.
- The article next states that some remains were put into orbit and returned into the atmosphere, burning up on re-entry.
- If correct this leaves none, or negligible amounts, of his remains still in orbit - and if any was left it would be impossible to prove.
- Though there are no figures, the majority must still be present on earth, as stated in the article there is a purported next trip to send some remains into deep space
- Even then some will still remain on earth.
As such, the resting place should not be completed. If the majority are sent into space, fine, but all evidence at the present points to the vast majority, if not all his remains, are still on Earth.
It would be much better to separate this into a section of it's own and explain these attempts to the reader. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Animated Series
Why isn't the Star Trek animated series mentioned? Bill Smith (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
What about TNG?
Other than the fact that Roddenberry was involved in it, this article contains no information about Roddenberry's involvement in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Despite the fact that he died two years in, he spent a lot of time on it, and it seems odd that nothing of his second most popular television show is mentioned.
Furthermore, Star Trek: Phase II and the movies are both barely mentioned. Surely we can do better.
— trlkly 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any information not covered in detail in those other articles already? Dream Focus 23:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Episodes listing - delete?
Would propose deletion of the long list of episodes; reads like a database table and not a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockupo (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Seconded. A credit for each series would be sufficient; no need to list every individual episode.— Lythalicious (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Categories
I think its odd that Gene is not categorized under Category:Star Trek. I know it opens up a can of worms to include all the creative individuals involved (i know actors dont get categorized here, just like they dont go into the navboxes, but I would think we could include creator, executive producers/directors of major films and tv series in this category tree.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Filmography
Surely that section should be split and shortened with a separate article created at Gene Roddenberry filmography? Narom (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wherever it ends up at, the current version is the worst filmography on Wikipedia. --91.10.50.182 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I just want to point out that User:Narom removes content from the article with no or questionable explanations. Apparently, the formatting is not correct, but he thinks that CANNOT STAND and removed the content.
I don't mind either way, if User:Narom wants to destroy his article, I think he should be allowed to. --91.10.50.182 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is name-checking Galaxy Quest in the intro really appropriate?
I like it, and I know a lot of Trek fans do too, but whether it is that relevant to the Roddenberry bio is ... questionable, I should think. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)