Frankly, what amazes me most are all of these self-appointed experts who presume to know every detail of what Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' was...and what does and doesn't contradict it.
Nevermind that Gene's own widow was apparently not nearly as incensed as all of these self-appointed 'experts', having agreed to appear in a few DS9 episodes herself.
And more to the point, nevermind the fact that the tone, mindset and presentation of TNG contradicted the tone, mindset and presentation of TOS on any number of levels....despite the fact that Gene himself was involved in both of those shows.
The fact is that if anyone contradicted Gene Roddenberry's so-called 'vision' (assuming there even WAS a vision, past getting really, really rich and doing as many drugs as possible), it was Gene Roddenberry.
TOS presented a view of the future that was NOT utopia. Our heroes were flawed individuals who argued and fought with each other while bending the rules all over the place, and who never pretended to know everything...and they were flying around the galaxy to explore. TOS is chock full of gray areas of morality, errors in judgment, and learning from mistakes.
TNG, in contrast, presented a crew full of perfect, 'evolved' beings. They were always right, did everything by the book, and they never disagreed with each other. And their mission was not, apparently, to explore, but instead to run around the galaxy spreading their 'enlightened' way of thinking like missionaries for secular humanism or something. TNG is chock full of black and white decisions, flawless judgment, and mistakes made only by the unenlightened, unwashed masses of aliens, most of whom couldn't wait to be be set on the right course by our perfect heroes come to rescue them from themselves.
IMO, Gene Roddenberry sold HIMSELF out with TNG. So any accusations of anyone else selling him out after that are moot. That particular horse had long ago left the barn by the time DS9 reached our TV screens.
Whatever 'vision' Roddenberry had for TOS got sold down the river in favor of a pile of 1980's PC platitudes.
And so this is one fan who simply does not buy that whole 'Gene Roddenberry's vision' line any longer.
The thing is that Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' SHOULD have been to simply make good scifi. It should have been to create interesting characters, and to develop those characters. It should have been to challenge the viewer with moral dilemmas....and illustrate what happens when one makes the right choice...and what happens when one makes the wrong choice. And what happens when there IS, in fact, no 'right choice'.
We got some of that with TOS - as much as one could expect out of a TV show made in the 60's.
But we didn't get it with TNG. Not by a longshot.
With DS9, we got some of that back. We got back the shades of gray that were absent from the sterilized Trek Universe of TNG. We got back storylines that challenged the viewer. We got back the concept of flawed heroes just trying to do the best they could. And I'm GLAD for that.
It's easy to be a saint in paradise.
But fortunately for us, DS9 was not paradise. Nor, by the way, was TOS.
I think is is very telling what happened to Trek after DS9. It was at a crossroads....and B&B chose to follow the path of the more sterilized, black & white approach.
Result: Voyager and Enterprise.
Meanwhile, Ron Moore, a DS9 writer, bailed from the Voyager staff within weeks of joining it due to 'creative differences' (in retrospect - no KIDDING!)...and went and did
Battlestar Galactica. Which I would argue became, in many ways, the
Voyager that could have been.
Now, I actually like
Voyager more than many fans on this board do. But I will say this: it pales in comparison to
Battlestar Galactica. VOY and BSG have very similar premises - a lost military ship (in BSG's case accompanied by a small civilian fleet) battling against incredible odds for their very survival...and trying to reach a destination that was either mythical (in BSG's case) or so far away as to be practically mythical (in VOY's case).
VOY is the product of a show-runner who took the happy-shiny Gene Roddenberry-approved TNG path to it's next level...and BSG is the product of a show-runner who took the darker and more morally nebulous DS9 path to
it's next level.
Me? Given that comparison, I don't give a shit about Gene Roddenberry's so-called 'vision'.
If the end result of that 'vision' is Voyager...and the end result of a DS9 writer's 'vision' on a show of almost identical premise is BSG?
Well, I'm thinkin' Gene Roddenberry and his 'vision' are HIGHLY overrated.
