The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! StarTrek will not be the same without Gene Roddenberryin TV SHOWS

agsr

Original StarTrek series and Next Generation were the best StarTrek series. Gene Roddenberry was a great visionary, and many of his concepts came true. Since that, there were a number of attempts to revive the franchise, but none came close and likely will never will.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry

agsr

If you look at the series created by Gene Roddenberry and compare it with other series, such as Voyager and the ohers, you can see how much better th older versions were.

islander507

While I fully agree that Gene Roddenberry was a visionary creator of the series, I think that the series has done nicely without him as well.  He only created some of the initial episodes of the Next Generation, and that series has taken off without him.  Deep Space Nine was also really amazing, and that was done without Gene.
Finally, the later series leveraged better technology and graphics to compensate for Gene’s lack of his visionary thinking.

CuriousGeorge

While original series was original for that time, the later series continues to adopt to evolving times and were also great.  The newer series were written by talented writers and are as good as the original.

CYDdharta

There have been other decent Star Trek series, but they were written by people who grew up with Gene Roddenberry's original work and were inspired by it.  If it weren't for Roddenberry, the spin-offs would never have been made.

islander507

The "Pro" side introduced the notion that Gene Roddenberry's visionary thinking was the key to making great StarTrek series.  
Also introduced idea that Gene influenced other writers to follow his foot steps and create great Star Trek series. I'd like to address these points.

1) Roddenberry's shows were not as popular as newer shows that were made without him and mostly without his influence.  Acdording to two sources Voyager and TNG were more popular than TOS.

https://nerdist.com/star-trek-netflix-most-rewatched/

http://www.startrek.com/article/poll-fans-most-watched-star-trek-series-is

2) yes, we couldn't have startrek spinoff without Gene Roddenberry, but that wasn't the debate.  The debate is if we can make great Star Trek series without him.  His inspiration stays on, but more popular shows were made since without him.

CuriousGeorge

Another source that lists star trek series by popularity, demonstrates that Deep Space 9 is top pick.  That was appoved by Gene Roddenberry, but not created by him. 
http://www.vulture.com/article/star-trek-every-tv-show-ranked-worst-to-best.html

The inspiration of Star Trek was important  as  stated by @CYDdharta

I certainly have respect for his legacy, but he created something bigger than himself and other writers created even more popular series based on that insipiration.

agsr

I acknowledge the sources that show that the original series were not as popular as the followup series.  However, we need to look at that as a function of time.  The newer series took advantage of the already established StarTrek user base and expanded on that viewership.  The newer series also upgraded tehnology to appeal more to newer generations.  Given that Roddenberry's series are still very popular today, so many years later, and were so groundbreaking for that time - I would argue that it makes it a better creation overall.  His series created a foundation for the other series. We cannot claim that for any of the spinoffs.

CYDdharta

The original Star Trek spawned an entire TV genre.  Prior to Star Trek, the closest thing to a Sci Fi series on US network television was the Twilight Zone.  Star Trek was the first with a recurring cast that took place entirely in outer space.

islander507

@CYDdharta
and @agsr, you both made great arguments, pivoting your debate on the fact that Original series was visionary for it's time and spawned of other ideas.  However, that still doesn't address the point that subsequent series were more popular than the orginal while made without Roddenberry.  An objective measure of how good a series is based on popularity, and multiple sources were provided to demonstrate popularity of the various series.
Great debating with you, and since it's final round, I look forward to the votes.

agsr

My definition of "better" is not measured by popularity many years later compared to more recent series. That wouldn't be a fair Comparison.  Popularity needs to be normalized for how much time has passed, as there is always bias towards more recent content.
The very latest episode of the current TV show will normally get more hits than an older episode.  
Better should be measured by how much impact it made on the society and forward.  TOS did that. It created generations of fans, spin offs, and prototypes of future techology that wasn't even concievable at that time.

In conclusion, I attribute all of that to the StarTrek creator, Gene Roddenberry, who both created the show, and inspired future generations of writers, innovators,  and fans. 

CuriousGeorge

I like to stay with the facts. The original series was great, and Roddenberry did a great job.  However, the subsequent series were better as measured by popularity.