Boldly Gone

It's been a while since I've written anything here. If you're a person who has managed to get some enjoyment from this column, you have both my thanks and my apologies. Life gets a bit hectic at times, so even though DJ and Louise pay us all enormous sums of cash for our submissions, I had to pass on it.

So what, you may be asking yourself, has caused me to emerge from my hibernation after all this time? Might I possibly be standing up to cheer for the impending resignation of my ol' buddy Michael Powell, while at the same time fearful that, like the Ashcroft-for-Gonzales trade, we might actually be headed for something even more diabolical? Not this time. Maybe I'm about to heave another torpedo at one of my favorite targets, censorship, while applauding Comedy Central for their Private Stash presentations? Tempting, but that'll have to wait.

So what is it that is so noteworthy?

Not long after this issue goes online, there will be no more Star Trek on television. Possibly you think this is a minor event. Maybe you don't even care in the slightest, and that's certainly your prerogative. The Trek phenomenon is unique, though, and its demise on tv - for the second time - is worth noting.

By now everyone knows that in 1967 Gene Roddenberry was developing a series for NBC. He'd promised them a Western, but gave them a science fiction show instead. Strangely, NBC let Roddenberry do his science fiction show, on the condition that it have at least one fight scene in every episode, as was pretty much standard in Westerns (with the possible exception of Have Gun, Will Travel, but I digress). So what you ended up with was some sort of hybrid horse opera, with a starship instead of the trusty steed.

But through all that nonsense, through Shatner's scenery chewing, the inter-species nookie, the ridiculous stories, Roddenberry managed to plant the seeds of his vision, which was the key to his success. What Roddenberry saw when he looked into the future was a time when men and women of all races and nationalities would work together for the betterment of humanity. He saw a society where material wealth no longer mattered, and people were free to pursue their interests. Also, he had a clever conceit of giving episodes titles that were lines from Shakespeare, and he dreamed up a bunch of really cool technology, like shields, warp drive, transporters, etc. Those are the reasons why a mostly inconsequential little series that was only on the air for three seasons simply refused to die.

I'm not a huge fan of the Original Series. I think that the few truly good science fiction stories that were told on that show were vastly outnumbered by schmaltzy, goofy, or heavy-handed stories. And no one is ever going to convince me that William Shatner, corseted to within an inch of his life and acting with all his community theatre bravura, was anything but a detriment to the cause. As a kid, I watched the show. I felt like I had to, I mean, holy cow, there just wasn't any science fiction on television in those days! Even then, though, I had some trouble with the show. All the fights bugged me, and the fact that Kirk was getting laid with just about every female of just about every species seemed needlessly stupid.

After the third season, NBC canceled the show, and that's when the snowball really got started rolling. The network was deluged with letters begging them not to cancel the show. It did no good, though. But like an artist whose death increases the value of is works, cancellation gave Star Trek a rosy aura of nostalgia, and the legend began to grow. After a few years, the shows were sold into syndication, and there wasn't an area in this country where Trek reruns couldn't be seen. That was good, but after a while, people wanted to see something more that those same seventy-nine episodes over and over again. Other attempts to do science fiction on tv, such as "Space: 1999" were downright abysmal. More and more, there was talk of a Star Trek feature film.

When it finally came, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was a bit of a disappointment. Basically, it was a re-make of an episode from the series. I think what they were trying to do was say, "Look! This is what we would have done with the series if we'd had the budget, and didn't have to do all that brawling!" Over the next several years, more films came out. They were of varying degrees of quality, and they whetted fans' appetites for more stories. Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly were getting a bit long in the tooth for the rigors of doing weekly series television, so it was time for a new generation to "boldly go."

In 1987, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" premiered, and it was everything Roddenberry wanted it to be. By this time, the elaborate Trek mythos - who invented warp drive, why Vulcans are our closest allies, etc., etc. ad nauseam - had been fully constructed. Roddenberry assembled a bunch of like-minded, talented writers and producers, got lots of budget for sets, costumes and effects, and put together a cast of extremely talented, experienced actors. Headed by the enormously talented Patrick Stewart, a classically trained actor, this cast would prove once and for all that great acting is possible in the genre of science fiction. Stewart's portrayal of Capt. Jean-Luc Picard was a tour-de-force. Picard, a quietly dignified man, was subjected to a vast array of unspeakable experiences over the course of this series. His struggle to keep his dignity, not to mention his sanity, was rather amazing to watch as it unfolded. Stewart actually got nominated for Best Actor in a Drama Series Emmy a few times, but the stigma of "science fiction" kept him from ever receiving the award. The supporting cast were no slouches, either, and several excellent guest stars also appeared. Most notable of those was John de Lancie as the omnipotent Q, a recurring thorn in Picard's side. For my money, one of the best pure science fiction stories ever told on tv was the episode where Q, to make a point that humans are ill-prepared to explore the galaxy, hurls the Enterprise into an unknown quadrant, where they encounter a horrifying species called the Borg. Part biology, part machine, the Borg are the perfect adversary: indestructible and utterly ruthless. The only thing that can save the crew of the Enterprise is Q himself, who puts them right back where they started. There were lots of great stories on this show, and the quality of the acting made it possible for them to do character pieces as well.

By far the smartest thing that the people responsible for Next Generation did, though, was release the show first-run in syndication. This way, the show was free from network meddling. Ratings wouldn't be a major factor; if they could get good numbers in key demographics, the show would sell itself. Syndication gives local stations carrying the show more time to sell, so everyone's happy. Best of all, unlike the networks, who constantly tinker with their schedules, local stations will do whatever it takes to have a show air in the same time slot on a consistent basis. Especially if the show's successful, and Next Generation was a hit from the start. It turned out that there was indeed a hunger for these kinds of stories.

After a shaky first season, the show began to hit its stride, and kept building. The success of Next Generation led to another spin-off, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Like Next Generation, this show had great production values and marvelous acting. A clever variation on the Trek theme of exploration, DS9 was a space station. Instead of going out into the galaxy to meet other species, the aliens would be coming to the Federation outpost.

The Trek franchise was now so successful that the shows were overlapping; for a period of about five or six years, there were always two Trek shows in production. All were released in syndication, and they all did well, to varying degrees. After Next Generation finished its run, Star Trek: Voyager was created. The story here was that a brand new starship, out for a test run with a temporary crew, was, through an unforeseen series of events, taken to the other side of the galaxy. They intrepidly headed for home; even though their best estimates were that it would take over seventy years to get back into familiar territory. Featuring a female Captain, ably played by Kate Mulgrew, the series put the crew of Voyager through some mighty rough times.

The latest entry in the Trek saga was a daring move in a lot of ways. First of all, they eschewed the words "Star Trek" in the series title, going with simply "Enterprise," and having a theme song with lyrics, rather than the now-customary grandiose instrumental. Instead of going further into the future, or farther into space, the Trek folks chose to give us a prequel. This series takes place a century before Kirk and his Enterprise. There's no Prime Directive, no United Federation of Planets, just Earth's first starship, out there alone, and frequently out of their element. After a pilot episode that was absolutely thrilling, the show foundered over the next few seasons. There were a few decent stories here and there, but for the most part, I thought they squandered a good opportunity.

A big reason for this might well be that Enterprise was a show on a network's schedule, not syndicated. Granted, the network is UPN, but the operative letter in that soup is "P," as in "Paramount." Paramount has produced and distributed Star Trek in all of its incarnations since the very beginning. Through the 80's and 90's, the Trek franchise was Paramount's primary source of income, so when Paramount decided to start its own network, it was natural that the newest Star Trek series would air there. But starting a new broadcast network is an iffy proposition, and UPN hasn't done well. Enterprise was supposed to be the cornerstone of the new network, and when it began to have troubles, I have no doubt that a lot of pressure was exerted on the producers to bring back viewers. In the past couple of seasons, I thought they were finally starting to get it going. Last year's season-long story line, and this year's hints at the beginnings of the Federation were the sort of stories I'd hoped to get from this show all along. But it appears to have been too little too late, and now Paramount has pulled the plug on what was once its cash cow. So I just wanted to go on record as being one person who's a bit sad to see that there will be no more new Trek material. As series endings go, I'm much sadder at the end of NYPD Blue than I am over Enterprise, but the demise of the Trek franchise is the larger issue for me in this case. Unlike when the Original Series ended, there is no shortage of science fiction available on television these days. I confess, though, that I find most of it pretty tedious. These shows understand, like Star Trek, that gee-whiz technology is the number one thing that people who watch science fiction want to see. Also like Trek, these shows understand the importance of showing attractive people wearing clothing that is either very tight or barely there. Some elements of a good story are there, but something is lacking.

Un-Curmudgeonly as it may sound, the Trek vision - a product of the mind of Gene Roddenberry - of humankind putting aside greed and aggression and working together for the betterment of all, is something I find hard to resist. It's what set Star Trek shows apart from most other science fiction movies and tv shows, and why I thought it was worth talking about.

© 2005 - Karl Cable