Yeah, just to clear up any misunderstanding, I mean it in the loosest of possible ways - I said purist for lack of a better word, as it conveys the general notion well - what I really mean is that I am a big fan what little I can glean of his true intentions, as an audience member. And I think there was a subtle change in direction when he died. I love that too, but my preference is for something akin to the former.
The original intention of a creator may not make it onto the final product, but some vision remains; you can for example discern something of George Lucas's philosophical vision, or Joss Whedon's philosophy, or JRR Tolkien's ideas and interests, from their works, even if the intent was unconscious, and even if the viewer may not be able to fully articulate it. Although it is always dangerous to ascribe 'isms' to people, Shakespeare was said to have possessed a remarkably humanistic view of mankind, as was, people argue, Leonardo da Vinci in a different sense.
I think there was a change in Trek overall after his death. One that I fully embrace, mind you, but which I now enjoy a bit less. What little we can know about a private man like Roddenbury, suggests he was a secular humanist who believed in objective reasoning, empathy, and an optimistic vision - he didn't want to promote the neuroses of the past - guilt, egotism, war, fear, and so on, even though he was not averse to his characters and Federation making mistakes. I think that some later Trek started to get further from this - not necessarily a bad thing (I'm a big fan of many works of fiction that present alternate worldviews) - but, I personally don't find it as inspirational, (albeit it was damn entertaining sometimes). DS9 played with the kinds of reasoning that created the military-industrial complex of our own time, occasionally as a critique of those ideas, but also occasionally finding them 'neccecary'. Voyager contained elements of subjective spiritualism, such as 'The Barge of the Dead', which if I remember, led to some dispute. I'm afraid I can't cite better examples, without re-watching them all, but that is the impression I have of Roddenbury's time. Perhaps it is just nostalgia
P.S. it occurs to me, regarding the 'bridging' thing, that there are sometimes two different approaches taken when making a creative work - a director sitting down for the first time, to work out the vision for his motion picture, may reason out the 'look' of his creation using objective reasoning; i.e. lets give the Trekkians from Trek IV a face mask, because of the high UV rays on their colony - but when a person bridges two things together, they aren't looking at the practicalities anymore, and so aren't being as creative - the Trekkians end up being a hybrid of two eras, when something much more original could have been invented - perhaps their planet suffered an ecological catastrophe since last seen, so they now have black skin legions from radiation burns caused by uranium fires, unearthed by volcanic activity. The instinct of someone trying to preserve something, or enforce a certain idea, is toward stasis and explanation - but creativity lies in not trying to do either, but rather shaking the status quo.
I guess that is the difference between creation and stagnation. Although I do not ascribe to his religion, the Buddhist Lama Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, wrote some interesting things on the nature of creativity in his book 'True Perception: The Path of Dharma Art'.