Greg Cox wrote:
To be fair, TOS certainly presented a notably optimistic view of the future, as opposed to the usual alien invasions, post-apocalyptic wastelands, or sterile dystopias. You had a future that largely worked, for the most part, but it was by no means utopian, especially out on the frontier. And the people (including aliens) were still recognizably human, driven by the same volatile emotions that have powered theater and drama since the days of "Oedipus Rex."
There's a difference between "optimistic" and "utopian" that Trek revisionists sometimes forget. All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .
TUC and FC illustrate best what Trek is about. It is not about perfect people but rather about people who err yet realize a mistake before it is too late because they strive to improve themselves. Reactionary fans like to ignore in particular the last part which begs the question of why they watch an optimistic sci-franchise in the first place.
There is nothing revisionist about pointing out that Kirk did not want to command a starship because of fame and money but because it is his "first, best destiny" and there is nothing revisionist about pointing out that Kirk's whoring or McCoy grumpy bickering are anything but arbitrary character traits and not the core of Trek. Roddenberry's vision is and all the TNG bashing in the world will not convert some minor changes between the sixties and the eighties into a giant paradigm shift.