Myself and my cousin The Journalist, well, we just love this stuff: So, without further ado we present, a tribute in two acts, on the occasion of Trek's 40th.
Star Trek: In September 1966, something happened. The first, the original, *without which there would have been no others* “Star Trek” premiered on NBC TV. A series that did not insult viewers’ intelligence, but acknowledged it and pushed the folks on the couch to puzzle, think, and understand as they watched. I’m not comfortable with the disrespect given this lovely prize by fans who only celebrate the spinoffs.
It’s important to remember Star Trek fans got a jump on something BIG.
The future.
The show itself took an incredible leap forward by representing humanity. I don’t permit the “it’s so dated” type of remarks. If you weren’t there, perhaps there is no effective way to explain to you how much of a risk Roddenberry took by just having different races and sexes and nationalities up there on the bridge.
In a time before personal computers, we knew about shipboard systems that held vast amounts of information. And its crew had personal models that they carried around with them.
In a time before cell phones, we knew about just such things. They were handheld “walkie-talkies” with astonishing range.
Diagnostic medical beds, aerosol medication delivery, wireless headsets. But *none* of this tech junk even begins to tell us what, or who, were the most important parts of the story.
The *characters.*
Star Trek is our mythos. The place where larger than life heroes showed us an idea that is currently on very dangerous ground. The idea that humanity *does* get to a point of not just *peaceful* coexistence, but an *interesting peace* peace without many borders, or much boredom…an enthusiastic merry band of warrior/diplomats that keep their society in line while being mindful of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and the Prime Directive. (Yes, Kirk used it like a rubber band. But without the *concept* the whole Federation would have been one large “brush war.”) Now, for those who expect a bit of Shatner bashing…go somewhere else for that. Pull out your DVD of first season Trek and watch Kirk. Before there was any parody of anything at all. Watch “Balance of Terror,” where we get both Kirk the master, restrained, *careful,* intense, *underplayed* strategist, and a sweet bit of the endlessly compassionate McCoy. Or the second pilot, where Kirk is all about stopping a nutcase, not out in front hamming. “Court Martial,” where there are pretty evenhanded doses of Kirk the tomcat, and Kirk the unjustly accused truthful defendant.
And before someone points me to the truly underappreciated “A Piece of the Action,” [“Captain you make an excellent starship commander, but as a taxi driver you leave much to be desired.”] or “I Mudd” or “The Trouble with Tribbles.” [“Why Mr. Baris they like *you!* But there’s no accounting for taste.”] This was *comedy.* If I remember correctly everyone got to ham it up a bit in those episodes.
Kirk’s my favorite “tin plated overbearing dictator with delusions of godhood…” So there.
Spock, the cool analytical risk taker in “Gallileo 7,” the anguished son in “Naked Time,” or restrained, but no less anguished officer in “Journey to Babel.”
The writers and Nimoy managed to create such a believable “other,” that an eyebrow made sense, that the subtlest change in stance, movement, tone, cadence or nuance was full of meaning whether the story was drama or comedy. They made us love Vulcans so much we asked for more! We got Sarek, T’Pring,T’Pau T’lar Stonn (poor fool!) Spock’s sniping at McCoy became a further window into his grudging respect and admiration for the doctor and his unwavering loyalty to his commander….so human, really.
McCoy. He was, I think, the first character who saw all the way in to the entire Spock. Kirk, did also, but I think McCoy “got it” first. Understood him. And did him and his cultural sensitivities the favor of bringing it out through the acceptable back door of an argument. Spock wouldn’t be so beloved if McCoy hadn’t been a window into his nature. It’s difficult to write about the character now, because the man who gave him life has left the planet. But DeForest Kelley and the writers infused this doctor with such caring, expertise and concern…that by the time McCoy did meet with a ladylove [“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched The Sky”] I was cheering that for once the nice guy did not finish last, whatever the merits of the episode.
For De, and James Doohan both…who didn’t make it to this anniversary… The word has been given, and I’ve no doubt they’re at warp speed.
Scotty who was the *only* one who *truly* loved that ship. Without his miracles, Kirk might have expired mid series…the beam of smile and certainty that was Sulu at the helm, who we loved best when he was out of character and sometimes even out of uniform. Uhura, a smart tough lady the guardian of the ships “communication tether” back to settled space a songbird, and a sexy Mata Hari full of bravado when trying to escape Mirror space…writing at the time gave the character little room for growth, but thankfully much written Trek tells us she is an academic, a student of language and communication…so much more than “hailing frequencies open, sir.” Chekov, the studious, earnest Russian product of a more open society that we had *no idea* was coming in 1967. Not to mention the best screamer in the bunch.
Even the some of the villains get amazingly respectful treatment. Mark Lenard’s resigned, bitter complex Romulan Commander, the merrily authoritarian Kor, of John Colicos…they ring just as ‘true’ and multifaceted as the “good guys.” I credit Colicos’ performance alone with giving the writers of the spinoffs the idea that there had to be more to this race than its aggressions.
Okay, I’ll admit to the third season….but in my recent review of the episodes I remembered that, the *second* season had its fair share of turkeys too… (The *Apple?*) But, bear with me. The turkeys *hurt* so much because we *know* the fineness of these stories, these performances, this vision of the future….
If you’re going to try to explain to a non-fan what’s great about the original Star Trek, you already know that using “Spock’s Brain,” “Spectre of the Gun,” “The Way to Eden” “Plato’s Stepchildren” or “Turnabout Intruder,” probably won’t make them ask for more, but, could, in fact, send them shrieking out into the night begging for some “Fabulous Thunderbirds” DVD’s. And, the cool episodes of Trek would not have “The Enterprise Incident” or “The Empath” in their midst if we hadn’t had a Season Three.
But the fact of the matter is that when Roddenberry left the show, even after the fans wrote in and saved it (Wrote in? Another unheard of thing.), the show’s days were numbered. And, then, when it was cancelled….*another crazy thing happened.*
The show, the idea, ended, was in danger of fading away….and the fans said: NO! This is too good, too interesting, too hopeful, too *important* of a possibility to give up. And they wrote, and wrote and wrote. (the writing has never stopped and continues to this day. I’m personally incredibly fond of the written Trek of Marshak and Culbreath, Diane Duane, A.C. Crispin, Margaret Wander Bonnano, and Peter David. Go get it. It’s consistently as good and sometimes even better than the show. I know, I know, I hear the squawks of “Treason!” for miles. Too Bad.) Blish recaptured the original stories. Fans wrote stories just to write them, and they gathered three years later to celebrate what they loved. Paramount was astounded… but somebody was smart enough to greenlight more adventures for Kirk and Co. via animation. (On DVD soon!) The actual animation is poor, but the writing of a few was incredible, and the voices of almost all the original actors were used…the animated shows are best “seen” with the eyes closed, I’ve found.
So the writing and congregating, and art and ideas went on and on. Amazingly we got our wish…and then the man who’d created this vision and helped it along for so long…stumbled. When we saw Kirk, a strangely cold, not just cool, Spock, and a bearded snarky McCoy…we were exhilarated as only one who has pined for a long anticipated reunion can get. But the first film is an oddly static story, color washed out of the writing and the uniforms, a still, overblown piece where adoring shots of the Enterprise newly lovely couldn’t make up for the missing heart in the writing about the people who fly in her. It made money, not because of what it was, but because of what we hoped for.
I forget the behind the scenes machinations that allowed for a second Trek film, but I thank the studio gods (whomever they may be) that a second film was shot. “Wrath of Khan,” is a true extension of the best series episodes, a bigger story, a more powerful score, a riveting return of a powerful villan and Kirk, McCoy and more than ever Spock…doing what they did best, and doing it well. Camaraderie, investigation, strategy, humor (“a difficult concept.”), Kirk finally being held to some sort of account for at least one of his affairs, (heh) and, heroic self sacrifice….I’m a softie….. even now when I *know* the ultimate answer is reunion…
When Spock stands to attention in front of his Captain and straightens his tunic, the horrific damage from radiation clear on his face and hands…. “I…never took…the Kobiashi Maru test…’til now….what do you think… of my solution?”
I can’t help but cry.
But of course there’s that odd little ‘gift’ he left McCoy…and there we go into the third film…with Nimoy directing the “Search for Spock,” and the band of brothers and sisters shows just what they will do: [“Oh I’ll have Mister Adventure eating out of my hand, sir…” “I’m glad you’re on *our* side!” “How many fingers am I holding up?” “That green blooded son-of-a-bitch! It’s his revenge for all those arguments he lost.” And my *favorite!* “Don’t call me Tiny!”]
What they will risk, or give up to save a comrade. Because, after all…Risk was their business. That was the twentieth anniversary…and the world is much changed….
I have to journey into the personal for just a moment. For those who know me offline and have known me, they know that I never would have met my other half without the Star Trek we both loved…it’s what brought us together…he had a great wish to stand on the NCC 1701’s (“No bloody A, B, C, or D!”) bridge…to sit in a particular Captain’s chair…but was too ill by the time we made it to the Smithsonian to be comfortable with anyone taking his picture. But he saw the exhibit of the sets and the costumes of the original series in 1992, and drank it all in with a purposeful intensity committing it to loving detailed memory, so that in his last eight months he could mentally take it out and polish it and remember…because he knew he had a long journey yet to go… He didn’t make it to this anniversary…but "There are always possibilities"...
The last part of this will be the one ‘speech’ from TOS Trek that still makes me want to freakin’ *stand and salute* when I hear it, and I’m a cynic. To me it’s not overblown, hokey, or false. It rings true. I’ve bracketed in one small alteration for sense. ---Imfunnytoo.
"The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock...the waste of lives, potential, resources, time.
I submit to you that your Empire is illogical because it cannot endure.
I submit that *you* are illogical to be a willing part of it.
If change is inevitable, predictable, beneficial,doesn't logic demand that you be a part of it?" "One man cannot summon the future."
"But one man can change the present.
Be the captain of this Enterprise, Mr. Spock!
Find a logical reason for saving the Halkans [doing right?] ,and make it stick.
Push till it gives!
What will it be?
Past or future?
Tyranny or freedom?
It's up to you.”
”It is time.”
”In every revolution, there's one man with a vision...."
"Captain Kirk, I shall consider it." *
*From “Mirror Mirror” by Jerome Bixby. All Star Trek material copyright Paramount Pictures, no copyright infringement intended or implied.
Friday, September 08, 2006
40th Anniversary The Last 20 years
Yes, the failure/resurgence of the original Trek series was an amazing success story, one that has never been equaled.
Yes, the first United States space shuttle was named after the ship on the show.
Yes, the 70s and early 80s were a memorable time for fans of the series.
But nothing - Nothing - prepared the world for The Voyage Home.
It's not the best Trek movie. You will find very few hardcore fans who think it's even the second best. But as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Star Trek IV was the true Trek crossover.
Everyone saw this movie. Everyone. Didn't matter if you were a Trek fan or not. Everything Paramount always says when there's a new Trek movie coming out, that PR bullsh!t about how "This movie will appeal to you even if you don't know the difference between a Borg and a tribble?!" Well, this is the only one of the 10 Trek movies that lived up to that.
And Star Trek IV remains, 20 years later, an absolute joy to watch. It's a great story, it celebrates what's great about each of the main seven original Trek characters, and the laughs are uncountable. In the vein of classic shows like "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "A Piece of the Action," the humor is never forced, it seems natural and grows out of the story and characters. It returned Spock to us - though the previous film had been the physical search for the character, "Voyage Home" was the character's search to rediscover himself, and it was both hysterical and moving. And the movie contains perhaps the best Chekov story ever - and maybe his best of many screams.
The syndication renaissance in the 70s had turned Kirk, Spock & co. into pop culture icons. The early movies turned them into commodities. But Voyage Home was what turned them into STARS.
So it was no surprise that shortly after that movie hit, Paramount announced big plans for Trek. Really big. Not just another movie - that was inevitable. Another TV show. The biggest gamble in Trek history That's what The Next Generation was. A new Trek show, with no characters from the first series? With Klingons as good guys? With a bald British guy playing a French captain? Roddenberry was taking a big chance here---messing with the very core of what he'd created, and he was risking alienating his legions of fans. Would anyone accept this new show? There was no way to know. Of course, we all know the answer to that question now, and it seems obvious in hindsight. TNG was the best thing on TV, and when looked at now, a dozen years after it went off the air, it's lost none of its power. Why the stupendous success of TNG? Why did it surpass Paramount's wildest expectations? First of all, it was constructed in the same spirit that the first series had been: it was powerful allegorical drama disguised as sci-fi. But even with the purest of intentions, the best that could remotely have been hoped for was to come close to equaling the original show in popularity, right? The best they could do was not lose the current fans, right? Not so, it turned out; TNG did the impossible: it became its own animal. It carved out its own niche. It had its own fans. It brought new devotees to Trek. Think about it: Would it ever have occurred to you in a million years, when you were watching that TNG pilot in 1987, that in the not-too-distant future, there would be serious debates about whether Patrick Stewart, who at that time seemed crusty and unheroic, was actually a BETTER captain than Jim Kirk?! Which leads us to 1989----what I call the turning point in Trek history. The year that the new generation truly took the Trek mantle from our original characters. That year, the original series stumbled for the first time in many many years, by depositing the disappointing "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (an overblown and conceptually flawed film that sobered us all up to the fact that Trek was indeed fallible) in theaters. That was the same year that TNG's third season began. And despite the success of the first two seasons, 1989-90 was the true breakthrough year in terms of defining the show; it was TNG's "Goldfinger," and it cemented the style, quality and insane popularity of Jean-Luc Picard and his crew which remains to this day. So TNG was no longer in Kirk & Company's shadow. It was now, in fact, the flagship of the franchise. That year saw such modern Trek classics as "Yesterday's Enterprise," "The Offspring," and of course, "The Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger. Its cast became beloved. Its writers took what were novelty ideas deposited into the show in season 1 and took them to their highest potential: You give us an unemotional android? We'll turn him into one of the most intriguing characters in history, who makes us laugh and cry at the same time. You give us a Klingon on the bridge who starts off with lots of makeup and barely any personality? We'll give you a full-blown Shakespearean storyline exploring Worf's family and his entire heritage. By the time the fourth season began, Picard may have been De-Borgified, but the entire Trek fan base had been assimilated. TNG was a juggernaut that could not be stopped.There was sadness on the horizon, though---Gene Roddenberry's health was failing. He died in the midst of what was perhaps Trek's biggest year to that date---its 25th anniversary. TNG was stronger than ever, with Leonard Nimoy making a seminal appearance as Spock. The final original series film- "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" - would amend for the debacle of the previous movie and end the Kirk-era stories on a high note. And plans were gestating for a second spin-off series (more on that in a moment). Roddenberry's passing signaled the official beginning of the Rick Berman years of Trek. One of Gene's top guys since the start of TNG, he would lead the franchise for 14 more years, up until the end of "Star Trek: Enterprise" in 2005. And he would not let Trek rest on its laurels. Within three years of Roddenberry's death, he had spearheaded two new Trek shows, and relaunched the movie franchise with the TNG crew as its stars. And while his accomplishments and his contributions to Star Trek have been debated over the years, there's no denying that he was the guiding force behind everything that was good about the franchise since Roddenberry's death. Unfortunately for his legacy, he's equally to blame for the shitty stuff.
The Berman era The great "Deep Space Nine" (1993-99) is the misunderstood stepchild of Roddenberry's original vision - and the boldest, most audacious, rich series the franchise ever gave us. It was a look at Star Trek's universe from a different, more complex angle; instead of the flagship of the mighty Federation on a ship of Starfleet's finest, the DS9 gang was a diverse mix of archetypes, most of whom saw Starfleet from an outside perspective. Over the course of seven years, DS9 shook up the Trek universe, and through its willingness to break the rules that had been established for it, showed us how it was even more cool than we thought it was. The show managed to weave together a knock-down drag-out two-year war, an oppressed spiritual race, political intrigue, and a singing, self-aware hologram in a Vegas gin joint. Pretty amazing. And it's too bad the show never received the true crossover acceptance that TNG did, but the true fans know how damn good it is.Meanwhile, the first TNG film, "Generations," usually is ranked as one of the lesser movie series entries by the fans, and despite its box office success, it was not seen as viable evidence that Picard and his gang were movie stars. The presence of original series elements in that flick - most notably a high-energy scene-stealing supporting performance from the future Denny Crane - fueled the perception that the TNG crew might not be true successors to the celluloid Trek throne.But all that changed with the 1996 release of "First Contact," which, in Trek's 30th anniversary year, managed to become the second most financially lucrative Trek film ever, despite what some saw as an oversaturation of the franchise at the time, with two series on the tube every week. Undeniably the best TNG movie, "First Contact" put to rest any debate over who was truly the king of modern-day Trek: it was Jean-Luc Picard. He had been a superstar on the TV show, without a doubt, but after a more subtle, quiet performance in "Generations," the second TNG movie let Stewart truly let loose, and show us a Picard we'd never seen before, both heroic and angry. (Ten years after the release of that movie, his legendary status in the sci-fi genre has only strengthened with his subsequent role in the blockbuster X-Men series.) No longer was there any question that TNG could hold its own on the big screen.
On the small screen, however, things were a bit shakier. While "First Contact" was burning up the box office, the UPN network's pride and joy, "Star Trek: Voyager" seemed to be experiencing a measurable ratings drop with every episode. "Voyager" was born around the same time the Internet was exponentially spreading its wings, and while Trek and the Net are often thought of as symbiotic, "Voyager" took hits like no other Trek series ever had as a result of online fans complaints. And a lot of the buzz was bad. To be fair, many of the complaints were justified. The show had a great setup and very little follow through. While DS9 benefited from its unique take on the Trek universe, Voyager was hindered by its conceptual similarity to TNG. For a show which was set 70,000 years from the Federation, the stories and aliens we met seemed pretty familiar. Precisely the wrong approach was taken---the more the show stumbled the more Berman tried to make it like TNG. What he should have done was push the envelope and give the show its own voice. Never happened. Despite creative bursts here and there - and a brief resurgence in attention to the show with the addition of Borg-in-a-catsuit Jeri Ryan in Season 4, the show was creatively stunted for most of its run. Voyager lasted for seven years, but it had worn out its welcome long before then.
I won't say much about "Star Trek: Enterprise" because unfortunately its story pretty much mirrors Voyager's. Bold beginning, interesting concept---it was even the first Trek series to cast a semi-well-known "star" as its captain- Scott Bakula, who had headlined the popular "Quantum Leap." But for the most part, it didn't deliver. It was seen as the same old stuff, and Trek fans were getting bored. The strongest evidence that Paramount had lost confidence in the show was when the moniker "Star Trek" was added in the third season (for the first two years the title was simply the more ballsy "Enterprise," which seemed to indicate a later-abandoned break with the formula). The seven-year Trek series life established by TNG was over; Enterprise had to fight for even a fourth---and final---year. (Ironically, the last season of Enterprise was its best. It started to truly tie in Captain Archer's stories with the "future" series' chronicles. If the fourth season had been the first, the show might actually have lasted longer.)The Berman era was clearly in a rut. The two most recent Trek feature films, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis," each dropped off measurably at the box office from the previous installment.
For the first time in 18 years, there is no Trek show on the tube.But that's probably a good thing. Trek is too perennial and too much a part of popular culture to be gone forever, but it needs a rest. On this, the 40th year of what Roddenberry wrought, we need time to step back and enjoy what we we've been given. We need to watch our DVDs of the original, TNG, DS9, and the good Trek movies, and revel in how good they are, and just be happy that we will always have them. The future So it's with decidedly mixed feelings and hesitant anticipation that I greet the recent announcement of an 11th Trek movie planned for 2008---this one spearheaded by "Lost" and "Alias" guru J.J. Abrams with nary a Berman or Brannon Braga in sight. New blood? Yes, it's a good idea. And if Abrams can guide the tired "Mission Impossible" film series, featuring a star whose popularity is on the outs, to $140 million, maybe he can reboot Star Trek, which (sorry MI fans) is clearly a much better series, both on TV and celluloid. But has Trek had enough time off? My instinct says not even close. How much time does it need? Think about the title of the second show. Maybe Trek needs to wait for the next generation---pun absolutely intended---until its next rebirth, when the world can see it with fresh eyes and welcome it with open arms, with all the baggage of Trek-spinoff-overload long since shed.
That being said, I'm a Trekaholic, and I'll be there opening night for whatever the hell the next installment ends up being. I just hope it proves itself worthy of its 40-year legacy. ---The Journalist.
Yes, the first United States space shuttle was named after the ship on the show.
Yes, the 70s and early 80s were a memorable time for fans of the series.
But nothing - Nothing - prepared the world for The Voyage Home.
It's not the best Trek movie. You will find very few hardcore fans who think it's even the second best. But as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Star Trek IV was the true Trek crossover.
Everyone saw this movie. Everyone. Didn't matter if you were a Trek fan or not. Everything Paramount always says when there's a new Trek movie coming out, that PR bullsh!t about how "This movie will appeal to you even if you don't know the difference between a Borg and a tribble?!" Well, this is the only one of the 10 Trek movies that lived up to that.
And Star Trek IV remains, 20 years later, an absolute joy to watch. It's a great story, it celebrates what's great about each of the main seven original Trek characters, and the laughs are uncountable. In the vein of classic shows like "The Trouble with Tribbles" and "A Piece of the Action," the humor is never forced, it seems natural and grows out of the story and characters. It returned Spock to us - though the previous film had been the physical search for the character, "Voyage Home" was the character's search to rediscover himself, and it was both hysterical and moving. And the movie contains perhaps the best Chekov story ever - and maybe his best of many screams.
The syndication renaissance in the 70s had turned Kirk, Spock & co. into pop culture icons. The early movies turned them into commodities. But Voyage Home was what turned them into STARS.
So it was no surprise that shortly after that movie hit, Paramount announced big plans for Trek. Really big. Not just another movie - that was inevitable. Another TV show. The biggest gamble in Trek history That's what The Next Generation was. A new Trek show, with no characters from the first series? With Klingons as good guys? With a bald British guy playing a French captain? Roddenberry was taking a big chance here---messing with the very core of what he'd created, and he was risking alienating his legions of fans. Would anyone accept this new show? There was no way to know. Of course, we all know the answer to that question now, and it seems obvious in hindsight. TNG was the best thing on TV, and when looked at now, a dozen years after it went off the air, it's lost none of its power. Why the stupendous success of TNG? Why did it surpass Paramount's wildest expectations? First of all, it was constructed in the same spirit that the first series had been: it was powerful allegorical drama disguised as sci-fi. But even with the purest of intentions, the best that could remotely have been hoped for was to come close to equaling the original show in popularity, right? The best they could do was not lose the current fans, right? Not so, it turned out; TNG did the impossible: it became its own animal. It carved out its own niche. It had its own fans. It brought new devotees to Trek. Think about it: Would it ever have occurred to you in a million years, when you were watching that TNG pilot in 1987, that in the not-too-distant future, there would be serious debates about whether Patrick Stewart, who at that time seemed crusty and unheroic, was actually a BETTER captain than Jim Kirk?! Which leads us to 1989----what I call the turning point in Trek history. The year that the new generation truly took the Trek mantle from our original characters. That year, the original series stumbled for the first time in many many years, by depositing the disappointing "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (an overblown and conceptually flawed film that sobered us all up to the fact that Trek was indeed fallible) in theaters. That was the same year that TNG's third season began. And despite the success of the first two seasons, 1989-90 was the true breakthrough year in terms of defining the show; it was TNG's "Goldfinger," and it cemented the style, quality and insane popularity of Jean-Luc Picard and his crew which remains to this day. So TNG was no longer in Kirk & Company's shadow. It was now, in fact, the flagship of the franchise. That year saw such modern Trek classics as "Yesterday's Enterprise," "The Offspring," and of course, "The Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger. Its cast became beloved. Its writers took what were novelty ideas deposited into the show in season 1 and took them to their highest potential: You give us an unemotional android? We'll turn him into one of the most intriguing characters in history, who makes us laugh and cry at the same time. You give us a Klingon on the bridge who starts off with lots of makeup and barely any personality? We'll give you a full-blown Shakespearean storyline exploring Worf's family and his entire heritage. By the time the fourth season began, Picard may have been De-Borgified, but the entire Trek fan base had been assimilated. TNG was a juggernaut that could not be stopped.There was sadness on the horizon, though---Gene Roddenberry's health was failing. He died in the midst of what was perhaps Trek's biggest year to that date---its 25th anniversary. TNG was stronger than ever, with Leonard Nimoy making a seminal appearance as Spock. The final original series film- "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" - would amend for the debacle of the previous movie and end the Kirk-era stories on a high note. And plans were gestating for a second spin-off series (more on that in a moment). Roddenberry's passing signaled the official beginning of the Rick Berman years of Trek. One of Gene's top guys since the start of TNG, he would lead the franchise for 14 more years, up until the end of "Star Trek: Enterprise" in 2005. And he would not let Trek rest on its laurels. Within three years of Roddenberry's death, he had spearheaded two new Trek shows, and relaunched the movie franchise with the TNG crew as its stars. And while his accomplishments and his contributions to Star Trek have been debated over the years, there's no denying that he was the guiding force behind everything that was good about the franchise since Roddenberry's death. Unfortunately for his legacy, he's equally to blame for the shitty stuff.
The Berman era The great "Deep Space Nine" (1993-99) is the misunderstood stepchild of Roddenberry's original vision - and the boldest, most audacious, rich series the franchise ever gave us. It was a look at Star Trek's universe from a different, more complex angle; instead of the flagship of the mighty Federation on a ship of Starfleet's finest, the DS9 gang was a diverse mix of archetypes, most of whom saw Starfleet from an outside perspective. Over the course of seven years, DS9 shook up the Trek universe, and through its willingness to break the rules that had been established for it, showed us how it was even more cool than we thought it was. The show managed to weave together a knock-down drag-out two-year war, an oppressed spiritual race, political intrigue, and a singing, self-aware hologram in a Vegas gin joint. Pretty amazing. And it's too bad the show never received the true crossover acceptance that TNG did, but the true fans know how damn good it is.Meanwhile, the first TNG film, "Generations," usually is ranked as one of the lesser movie series entries by the fans, and despite its box office success, it was not seen as viable evidence that Picard and his gang were movie stars. The presence of original series elements in that flick - most notably a high-energy scene-stealing supporting performance from the future Denny Crane - fueled the perception that the TNG crew might not be true successors to the celluloid Trek throne.But all that changed with the 1996 release of "First Contact," which, in Trek's 30th anniversary year, managed to become the second most financially lucrative Trek film ever, despite what some saw as an oversaturation of the franchise at the time, with two series on the tube every week. Undeniably the best TNG movie, "First Contact" put to rest any debate over who was truly the king of modern-day Trek: it was Jean-Luc Picard. He had been a superstar on the TV show, without a doubt, but after a more subtle, quiet performance in "Generations," the second TNG movie let Stewart truly let loose, and show us a Picard we'd never seen before, both heroic and angry. (Ten years after the release of that movie, his legendary status in the sci-fi genre has only strengthened with his subsequent role in the blockbuster X-Men series.) No longer was there any question that TNG could hold its own on the big screen.
On the small screen, however, things were a bit shakier. While "First Contact" was burning up the box office, the UPN network's pride and joy, "Star Trek: Voyager" seemed to be experiencing a measurable ratings drop with every episode. "Voyager" was born around the same time the Internet was exponentially spreading its wings, and while Trek and the Net are often thought of as symbiotic, "Voyager" took hits like no other Trek series ever had as a result of online fans complaints. And a lot of the buzz was bad. To be fair, many of the complaints were justified. The show had a great setup and very little follow through. While DS9 benefited from its unique take on the Trek universe, Voyager was hindered by its conceptual similarity to TNG. For a show which was set 70,000 years from the Federation, the stories and aliens we met seemed pretty familiar. Precisely the wrong approach was taken---the more the show stumbled the more Berman tried to make it like TNG. What he should have done was push the envelope and give the show its own voice. Never happened. Despite creative bursts here and there - and a brief resurgence in attention to the show with the addition of Borg-in-a-catsuit Jeri Ryan in Season 4, the show was creatively stunted for most of its run. Voyager lasted for seven years, but it had worn out its welcome long before then.
I won't say much about "Star Trek: Enterprise" because unfortunately its story pretty much mirrors Voyager's. Bold beginning, interesting concept---it was even the first Trek series to cast a semi-well-known "star" as its captain- Scott Bakula, who had headlined the popular "Quantum Leap." But for the most part, it didn't deliver. It was seen as the same old stuff, and Trek fans were getting bored. The strongest evidence that Paramount had lost confidence in the show was when the moniker "Star Trek" was added in the third season (for the first two years the title was simply the more ballsy "Enterprise," which seemed to indicate a later-abandoned break with the formula). The seven-year Trek series life established by TNG was over; Enterprise had to fight for even a fourth---and final---year. (Ironically, the last season of Enterprise was its best. It started to truly tie in Captain Archer's stories with the "future" series' chronicles. If the fourth season had been the first, the show might actually have lasted longer.)The Berman era was clearly in a rut. The two most recent Trek feature films, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis," each dropped off measurably at the box office from the previous installment.
For the first time in 18 years, there is no Trek show on the tube.But that's probably a good thing. Trek is too perennial and too much a part of popular culture to be gone forever, but it needs a rest. On this, the 40th year of what Roddenberry wrought, we need time to step back and enjoy what we we've been given. We need to watch our DVDs of the original, TNG, DS9, and the good Trek movies, and revel in how good they are, and just be happy that we will always have them. The future So it's with decidedly mixed feelings and hesitant anticipation that I greet the recent announcement of an 11th Trek movie planned for 2008---this one spearheaded by "Lost" and "Alias" guru J.J. Abrams with nary a Berman or Brannon Braga in sight. New blood? Yes, it's a good idea. And if Abrams can guide the tired "Mission Impossible" film series, featuring a star whose popularity is on the outs, to $140 million, maybe he can reboot Star Trek, which (sorry MI fans) is clearly a much better series, both on TV and celluloid. But has Trek had enough time off? My instinct says not even close. How much time does it need? Think about the title of the second show. Maybe Trek needs to wait for the next generation---pun absolutely intended---until its next rebirth, when the world can see it with fresh eyes and welcome it with open arms, with all the baggage of Trek-spinoff-overload long since shed.
That being said, I'm a Trekaholic, and I'll be there opening night for whatever the hell the next installment ends up being. I just hope it proves itself worthy of its 40-year legacy. ---The Journalist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)