10 Star Trek Debates That Tear The Fandom Apart

Gene Roddenberry was a visionary, one who was also a savvy businessman. He tested the waters of what he could get away with in the 60s, pushing the boat farther than many of his contemporaries. Critiques levelled against The Original Series can sometimes come via a modern lens. However, when discussing what was featured in that show, one must also consider the censorship of the day. 

The Dominion War inspired much debate over what Gene’s vision was for the future. There were those who argued that big interstellar wars were antithetical to Gene’s vision, so adverse were they to the idea of a Utopia. Deep Space Nine as a whole has inspired many debates on what Starfleet truly is, or what it must be to remain the way it should be. Section 31 is another introduced idea in that show that seems anathema to his vision - how could Starfleet, of all things, have its own version of the CIA?

Deep Space Nine argued that the perfect idea of the future was very much the issue. This is easily seen as the main argument against how Gene did things. Gene wanted no conflicts at all in the future, specifically interpersonal drama between crewmates. The writers for The Next Generation have often spoken out against this edit, bemoaning how difficult it made writing for a series. Deep Space Nine effectively threw this edit out the window as it was the brainchild of Rick Berman and Michael Piller. Perhaps this contributed to the initial lower ratings for the show, removed as it was from Gene’s ideals. 

In the intervening years, it has seen a reappraisal, now confident in its popularity. Gene purists argue that The Original Series and The Next Generation are Star Trek in its purest form, encapsulating Roddenberry’s ideas and beliefs, while there are those who argue that without shows like Deep Space Nine, Enterprise, Discovery and beyond, this version of the future is incomplete.