• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    221
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    When your ego is so huge that it doesn’t even occur to you that the person you’re lying about will almost certainly see and publicly expose your lie.

    Queerphobic, misogynistic asshole. I’m glad she called him out.

    • Farid@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      7 days ago

      Idk much about him, but I keep reading here and there that he was terrible. How did he manage to write Star Trek episodes if he was those things?

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        81
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        You can be brilliant in some ways while being useless or a POS in other ways.

        Steve Jobs was an excellent salesman and marketer. He was an awful father and thought that a fruit-only diet would cure pancreatic cancer.

        Richard Stallman is an excellent steward of open source software and user freedom in software, and he has been very prescient of the shit that would ultimately come from proprietary software. But he is also a major creep to women and a staunch defender of paedophilia and bestiality.

        Someone I knew, before she passed away, was enormously selfless. Gave everything she had to others, fostered a lot of children who all grew up to be great people. Lived with almost no money because she preferred to spend it helping other people, was a big pusher of LGBT rights in the 80s and 90s, helped run a centre that helped HIV victims, never spoke up about the good she was doing because she preferred to keep it a secret… was (astounding to me) enormously racist.

        People are complicated.

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          7 days ago

          That last one speaks to how some people try and redeem themselves despite their flaws. We’re not all cut and dry. You can still be a good person, even if you’re flawed, provided the good you do outweighs the the bad. I would also throw a caveat in there, in that you’re actively trying to address your faults, too. Doesn’t do much good if you’re burning crosses and houses to the ground, and then taking in the resulting foster children lol.

      • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        6 days ago

        Berman wasn’t the one writing or directing, he was the executive producer. which means he also wasn’t producing, he was the one who signed off on other people’s work. Read: he vetoed a lot of good ideas out of fear it would anger the studio. As progressive and intelligent as Star Trek was, he kept it from being so much better.

        The writers and the lower producers did what they could. Sometimes sneaking around behind his back to make sure something was shown or said.

        • T156@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          For example, Roddenberry wanted an LGBT character as far back as TOS, but it got vetoed by Berman. That would have been incredible for 1960.

          I think he also did it when Frakes wanted the non-binary alien he flirted with in one episode to have a male actor instead of a female one, but that also got vetoed.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 days ago

        Decent people can write stories about murderous characters who do not reflect their values.

        Terrible people can write stories about decent people who do not reflect their values.

          • OpenStars@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            Ikr, like did he work for Boeing or…? :-P

            He definitely had “character” though, as someone who faced death, multiple times, and had to stare at it and let it change him, to focus his efforts on stuff that really matters in life. (anti-capitalistic principles I guess?:-D)

      • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        7 days ago

        Because every time he changed an episode’s script to “berman it up a little” he’d give himself a writers credit.

      • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Sexist piece of shit who liked to step all over anyone he perceived as “beneath” him (everyone) and if you’ve ever thought to yourself “given the rest of the show, why would THAT be a thing? It feels gross and entire groups of people would feel marginalized by this” while watching it, it was probably a Berman Special. Like Seven’s… “uniform”…

        Also from what I understand, racist. Like the ferengi.

  • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    7 days ago

    His story smells like self-aggrandizing bullshit. If he got close enough to any actress to remove something from her costume, someone should have hit him with the cake. That’s not your job, so don’t touch the talent, asshole.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    You know, with how great and progressive Star Trek is… Uh… The older Trek, mind you… I often wonder how anyone like Berman could even make something like that.

    How could Star Trek continue under Berman and still be Star Trek?

    • draneceusrex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Never meet your heroes. Joss Whedon, JK Rowling, Orson Scott Card… all the horrible people making super influencial content that so essentially stands in opposition to their horrid real life behavior. I just don’t get it either…

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        This is a long watch, but this video explains how Harry Potter is essentially a story about the virtues of bland centrism, and shows that the breadcrumb trail to Rowling’s bigotry was there all along. The scales fell from my eyes while listening to this.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 days ago

      Look closer and you’ll find that Berman’s run wasn’t as progressive as you might remember. He repeatedly vetoed attempts to write stories about homosexuality, continued Roddenberry’s thing about putting women in skimpy outfits, and so on. TOS was very progressive for the '60s, but TNG, VOY, and ENT were significantly less progressive for their time.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        continued Roddenberry’s thing about putting women in skimpy outfits

        No. Female officers wearing short dresses was requested by the women on set at the time, not by Roddenberry.

        Initially men and women were going to wear the same uniforms, which was criticised by feminists.

        Remember that at this time, women were rebelling against having to cover up their bodies for modesty sake. It was at around the time of “free the nipple” and women burning their bras. Short skirts and dresses were popular at the time because it’s what women wanted to wear.

        Women dressing “skimpy” on TOS was an act of female empowerment. Youre looking at this through a prudish 2024 lense and assuming seeing womens legs is down to sexism.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        TOS was very progressive for the '60s, but TNG, VOY, and ENT were significantly less progressive for their time.

        It’e also been a trend that’s unfortunately carried over into the newer treks. They barely push the boundaries at all.

        DS9 probably only got away with as much as they did because Voyager was commanding most of the attention at the time.

  • Taleya
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 days ago

    He just gets shittier and shittier jesus

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      This was what I was thinking. If she put quotes around “thank” and used unceremoniously instead, the post would read closer to what it sounds like she intended.

      Edit: I only just noticed a couple of things: first, this post is five years old. Second, she responded with full-throated support of Rick. So despite the fact that he is pretty well understood as a POS around most Trek communities these days, Denise doesn’t seem to want to be lumped in with that.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Ceremoniously makes sense. You’re doing something you know is wrong so you play it up so no one will stop you, or they’ll be interrupting a grand gesture of sorts when they do so you can play the part of flustered surprise.

  • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Section 31’s ability to insist that they didn’t “plant” a commander into the Romulan empire even decades later is rather impressive.

    Even when there’s documented evidence proving otherwise.