How Star Trek: TNG Represents Gene Roddenberry's Vision, According To Michael Dorn

"Star Trek" franchise creator Gene Roddenberry was a man of strict ideals and powerful ideas. That's a big part of why the franchise has had such staying power, as he created a universe with defined parameters for not only the onscreen elements of storytelling, but also the overall moral imperatives as well. Just as Roddenberry had specific rules for things like the design of spaceships within "Star Trek," he also had rules for the property's themes. This allowed for stories about exploration and all of the complications that come with it while ensuring that "Star Trek" remained explicitly a show about pacifism at its core. And for the most part, the shows and movies have stuck to this pacifist mindset, with a few rare exceptions like the Dominion War on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and events in the Kelvin-verse movies.

Few people understand "Star Trek" from the inside as intimately as actor Michael Dorn, who has portrayed the Klingon warrior and Starfleet officer Worf throughout several installments in the franchise, including "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Deep Space Nine," and "Star Trek: Picard." In an interview with TrekMovie, Dorn shared that while he believes in the darker elements of some later "Trek," he feels "Next Generation" was really the "Star Trek" that delivered Roddenberry's vision.

When asked about how Roddenberry might have felt about the darker elements of "Deep Space Nine" and "Picard," Dorn had an honest but diplomatic answer, explaining:

"Gene's vision is 'The Next Generation.' That's the vision. It was always hope. It was always on a ship going out in the out into space. And so I think [what came after] probably isn't his vision, but the thing is that we had to have somebody take over. And I think their vision fits into 'Star Trek.' And I always believe there's room for all kinds of 'Star Trek.'"

Dorn is carefully dodging the fact that Roddenberry would have absolutely hated "Deep Space Nine" and was on the record as thinking the whole thing was a terrible idea, but he's also right about there being room for all kinds of "Star Trek." After all, some fans (myself included) believe that "Deep Space Nine" was the best "Star Trek" series of them all, and even "Next Gen" fans have to contend with the fact that Roddenberry loathed one of that series' very best episodes. Even though Roddenberry was clearly a passionate, talented creative, he did have some limitations that prevented him from seeing all of the wonderful stories that "Star Trek" could tell.

Some "Star Trek" fans really get their Starfleet underpants in a twist if any particular entry in the "Star Trek" franchise isn't to their liking, but honestly Dorn is right on the money (latinum?) when it comes to how important it is to get a variety of visions of what the "Star Trek" utopia really should be. After all, Roddenberry was pretty progressive for his era but still had his own issues (especially when it came to women), and there weren't exactly many, if any, female writers or writers of color on those early "Star Trek" shows. So, while there are certainly some frustrating parts of the "Star Trek" franchise (looking at you, "Into Darkness"), there is ultimately no single correct take on what "Star Trek" should be. It's gotten bigger than Roddenberry, bigger than any one person who helped create it. So, while Roddenberry might be "turning in his grave," according to the original Captain Kirk, William Shatner, the franchise has long since outgrown him.

Any "Star Trek" series or film that introduces someone to the overall franchise and makes them a Trekkie/Trekker (don't get me started) is a good "Star Trek" entry, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, even if it's "Star Trek: Discovery" or "Star Trek: Nemesis," in which Tom Hardy dresses like a K-Mart cenobite. Much like pizza, all "Star Trek" is good "Star Trek," even with anchovies or lens flares.