That's some interesting history, Noname Given, but it doesn't address the point I was getting at, which was the way TNG's characters were required to be idealized, perfected people free of normal human foibles and conflicts because Roddenberry wanted to showcase his vision of an ideal future. By contrast, TOS's characters had plenty of flaws and conflicts, because TOS's Roddenberry was more interested in telling interesting stories than being a visionary. It goes without saying that he was doing it to make money in both cases, but the way he went about portraying characters and conflicts was very different.
You mentioned, a few posts back, that Roddenberry came to believe his own press, that he came to see himself as the utopian thinker that 1970s fandom decided that he was.
I've sometimes wondered if Roddenberry's utopian revisionist view of Star Trek
had just as much to do his marginalization from the franchise in 1980s as it did with fandom. By saying that people in the Star Trek
future didn't have conflicts, Roddenberry was giving himself a rhetorical cudgel he could use against Harve Bennett's plans for the 1980s films. He needed a way to differentiate Star Trek
from what was actually being done in the name of Star Trek
, and as a result he began to believe and promote increasingly unhinged theories, which reach their zenith in Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation
, which is truly unhinged.