As I have a few days off, I have had a chance to watch some of the episodes of Star Trek that run on Spike TV, and that inspired me to do a bit of reflection on the subject of Trek, which has lost the attention and interest of the public as of late. Indeed, it has been close to, but not quite, a year since the last new episode of Enterprise, or any Star Trek episode for that matter, has been produced. There continues to be discussion about a Star Trek movie, but little movement in the television front. This has got me into thinking: What would it take to for a new Star Trek series to take orbit?
In order to answer this question, one needs to consider the chain of events which brought us to this point. In short, we need to think about what Star Trek was, what it has become, how it became problematic, and how it can be fixed.
Fortunately, as I will demonstrate, it is not as complicated as one might suspect.
The original Star Trek series, now known in Trek circles as "Star Trek: The Original Series (ST: TOS)," lasted only 3 years on NBC, and was saved for its final season, only after a letter writing campaign. The show centered on Captain James T. Kirk, his Vulcan First Officer Spock, and Dr. McCoy (also known as: "Bones"), as they explored the galaxy and all its oddities. During the series, most episodes dealt with social political situations, while stretching the limits of the imagination, and considered limitless possibilities of science. After the show's run, it became an immense cult hit, passed from generation to generation.
After a series of Movies, a retooled version called "Star Trek: The Next Generation," debuted in syndication. Set some 70 plus years after the original, the show continued to develop similar plot lines regarding society and scientific possibilities. This time, the role of Captain was played by British actor Patrick Stewart as Captain Jean-Luc Picard. This show was much more popular than the original, lasting 7 seasons.
In addition, the show had one spin-off, called "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," consisting of a new cast, along with some members from TNG, debuting while TNG was still on the air, and also lasting 7 seasons. "DS9" as it is often referred to, strayed away from some of the science fiction, while resorting to it, only as a way to deal with more socio-political issues. DS9 focused mainly with issues regarding “The Federation,” such as tensions between several warring races.
It is with the last two Star Trek series that things get a bit, well, Trekky. While the first three shows thought imaginatively about science and politics, the last two only seemed to care about Trek. Star Trek: Voyager, which debuted during DS9's sophomoric period, and was itself something of a spin-off, was the first of the Trek series to have a woman as a Captain. It was also the first Star Trek series to center around a ship that was not the Enterprise (unless you count Deep Space Nine as a ship).
Unfortunately, Voyager differed from the other series because of its limited plot structure. The show focused around a Federation ship that, while chasing a renegade ship, was thrown millions of light years through a now closed worm-hole. At that point, the entire series centered on getting home. Gone were the simple explorations into the socio-political condition. Instead, science was used to "get them off the island."
This posed several problems from both a viewer and production standpoint. First of all, while they were able to explore some scientific theories, there was little or no cross-over into other casts of Star Trek. For example, there was no chance of us ever seeing a character from a Star Trek show, such as Worf, or Spoke, because Voyager was so far away (although, this was remedied in several episodes during the last season of the show, where we saw characters like Diana Troi). Second, much of the excitement of the show was gone, because, at the end of each episode, you knew that any attempt to get the ship home would fail unless the show was canceled or over. No attempt was made to find other sources of plot device for future seasons. For 7 seasons, it was all about getting home, and little else. Still, Voyager retained an audience, thanks in part to some creative script writing, the re-introduction of The Borge via "Seven of Nine," and through continued interest in science fiction.
By the time Star Trek Enterprise appeared as the replacement for Voyager, much of the audience had tired of the perversion of plot device that was used during Voyager. In addition, there seemed to be a feeling among those within Paramount studios (and Parent Viacom owned UPN) that Trek somehow needed to be re-invented. The Movie series was also beginning to struggle.
Thus, the new show went backward rather than forward. The show seemed to be set several generations before TOS. And this is where the main problems began.
First, by creating a series taking place before the other 4, it became a limiting factor in much of the science fiction left to write about. For example, how could you talk about something already discovered in a previous episode of one of the other series? How do you explain the Romulans, if they had not been discovered until TOS? So many of the storylines had been developed in the other 4 series, there was little left to explore, and more to the point, they couldn't. Second, on many occasions, the writers, who were clearly inexperienced in Star Trek, wrote themselves into a corner. In one example from the premiere episode, a Klingon is discovered. But instead of having this Klingon looking like one in TOS, he had the full body make-up with the ridges on the forehead. Being that Enterprise was prequel, such a blunder squandered a perfect opportunity to explain how the Klingons came to look as they did in recent movies and series (although this was eventually dealt with in the final season). And finally, (and most revealing), was the failure to cast compelling characters as had been done in pervious series. Instead, the idea was to "throw away the Prime Directive." But if you throw away TPD, then how do you expect your characters to act? Instead, there was this sense that the Captain (played by Quantum Leap's Scott Bakula), should be more rigid, and less like Picard. What resulted instead was a cast of characters that were less than warm and fuzzy, and not much fun to be around. Add to that, the failure of any of the shows to have a B or C plot, thus making for very boring episodes with little comic relief.
During the shows third and fourth season, elements were devised to give the show more teeth. But by the forth season, attempts to finally use the show as a canvass to explain much of the story lines in previous Star Trek shows came too little, too late. Ultimately, Enterprise failed with the entire franchise stumbling under it largely because it was no longer about science fiction or about current events. Instead, Star Trek was now about Star Trek. This meant that you had to be a die-hard Trek fan to care, and few of those are below the age of 30, leading to a depleted audience, with no viable prospects for advertisers. Therefore, Enterprise’s ultimate cancellation, and the first season without a new Star Trek episode in production came early in 2005.
So, how does one fix it? As I said earlier, this is not so complicated. Star Trek should take a hint from shows like Battlestar Galactica. Production should turn decidedly adult, and serious. When bullets fly, they should be real bullets. There should be real feelings, real emotions, and less emphasis on cheesy soundtrack music. And, just like the new BSG, Star Trek should re-invent the original series. Whoever said that someone else can not play Kirk? Whoever said it can not be a woman? And why has there never been a Jewish or Christian representation in a Star Trek series? TV shows, just like books are stories, and how a story is told, is based on the mouth of the teller, or the pen of the scribe. Gene Roddenberry is gone, and is time to tell the story a new way. Finally, the show needs to get back to the business of science. It's a science fiction show that parallels current events, and nothing more. Create a Star Trek series that is compelling, that pushes the boundaries of the imagination, while preserving the utmost realism, and that will be a show that will not only re-invigorate Trekdom, it will create a whole new generation of Star Trek fans. Simply put: The only way to boldly go is to go there boldly.
In order to answer this question, one needs to consider the chain of events which brought us to this point. In short, we need to think about what Star Trek was, what it has become, how it became problematic, and how it can be fixed.
Fortunately, as I will demonstrate, it is not as complicated as one might suspect.
The original Star Trek series, now known in Trek circles as "Star Trek: The Original Series (ST: TOS)," lasted only 3 years on NBC, and was saved for its final season, only after a letter writing campaign. The show centered on Captain James T. Kirk, his Vulcan First Officer Spock, and Dr. McCoy (also known as: "Bones"), as they explored the galaxy and all its oddities. During the series, most episodes dealt with social political situations, while stretching the limits of the imagination, and considered limitless possibilities of science. After the show's run, it became an immense cult hit, passed from generation to generation.
After a series of Movies, a retooled version called "Star Trek: The Next Generation," debuted in syndication. Set some 70 plus years after the original, the show continued to develop similar plot lines regarding society and scientific possibilities. This time, the role of Captain was played by British actor Patrick Stewart as Captain Jean-Luc Picard. This show was much more popular than the original, lasting 7 seasons.
In addition, the show had one spin-off, called "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," consisting of a new cast, along with some members from TNG, debuting while TNG was still on the air, and also lasting 7 seasons. "DS9" as it is often referred to, strayed away from some of the science fiction, while resorting to it, only as a way to deal with more socio-political issues. DS9 focused mainly with issues regarding “The Federation,” such as tensions between several warring races.
It is with the last two Star Trek series that things get a bit, well, Trekky. While the first three shows thought imaginatively about science and politics, the last two only seemed to care about Trek. Star Trek: Voyager, which debuted during DS9's sophomoric period, and was itself something of a spin-off, was the first of the Trek series to have a woman as a Captain. It was also the first Star Trek series to center around a ship that was not the Enterprise (unless you count Deep Space Nine as a ship).
Unfortunately, Voyager differed from the other series because of its limited plot structure. The show focused around a Federation ship that, while chasing a renegade ship, was thrown millions of light years through a now closed worm-hole. At that point, the entire series centered on getting home. Gone were the simple explorations into the socio-political condition. Instead, science was used to "get them off the island."
This posed several problems from both a viewer and production standpoint. First of all, while they were able to explore some scientific theories, there was little or no cross-over into other casts of Star Trek. For example, there was no chance of us ever seeing a character from a Star Trek show, such as Worf, or Spoke, because Voyager was so far away (although, this was remedied in several episodes during the last season of the show, where we saw characters like Diana Troi). Second, much of the excitement of the show was gone, because, at the end of each episode, you knew that any attempt to get the ship home would fail unless the show was canceled or over. No attempt was made to find other sources of plot device for future seasons. For 7 seasons, it was all about getting home, and little else. Still, Voyager retained an audience, thanks in part to some creative script writing, the re-introduction of The Borge via "Seven of Nine," and through continued interest in science fiction.
By the time Star Trek Enterprise appeared as the replacement for Voyager, much of the audience had tired of the perversion of plot device that was used during Voyager. In addition, there seemed to be a feeling among those within Paramount studios (and Parent Viacom owned UPN) that Trek somehow needed to be re-invented. The Movie series was also beginning to struggle.
Thus, the new show went backward rather than forward. The show seemed to be set several generations before TOS. And this is where the main problems began.
First, by creating a series taking place before the other 4, it became a limiting factor in much of the science fiction left to write about. For example, how could you talk about something already discovered in a previous episode of one of the other series? How do you explain the Romulans, if they had not been discovered until TOS? So many of the storylines had been developed in the other 4 series, there was little left to explore, and more to the point, they couldn't. Second, on many occasions, the writers, who were clearly inexperienced in Star Trek, wrote themselves into a corner. In one example from the premiere episode, a Klingon is discovered. But instead of having this Klingon looking like one in TOS, he had the full body make-up with the ridges on the forehead. Being that Enterprise was prequel, such a blunder squandered a perfect opportunity to explain how the Klingons came to look as they did in recent movies and series (although this was eventually dealt with in the final season). And finally, (and most revealing), was the failure to cast compelling characters as had been done in pervious series. Instead, the idea was to "throw away the Prime Directive." But if you throw away TPD, then how do you expect your characters to act? Instead, there was this sense that the Captain (played by Quantum Leap's Scott Bakula), should be more rigid, and less like Picard. What resulted instead was a cast of characters that were less than warm and fuzzy, and not much fun to be around. Add to that, the failure of any of the shows to have a B or C plot, thus making for very boring episodes with little comic relief.
During the shows third and fourth season, elements were devised to give the show more teeth. But by the forth season, attempts to finally use the show as a canvass to explain much of the story lines in previous Star Trek shows came too little, too late. Ultimately, Enterprise failed with the entire franchise stumbling under it largely because it was no longer about science fiction or about current events. Instead, Star Trek was now about Star Trek. This meant that you had to be a die-hard Trek fan to care, and few of those are below the age of 30, leading to a depleted audience, with no viable prospects for advertisers. Therefore, Enterprise’s ultimate cancellation, and the first season without a new Star Trek episode in production came early in 2005.
So, how does one fix it? As I said earlier, this is not so complicated. Star Trek should take a hint from shows like Battlestar Galactica. Production should turn decidedly adult, and serious. When bullets fly, they should be real bullets. There should be real feelings, real emotions, and less emphasis on cheesy soundtrack music. And, just like the new BSG, Star Trek should re-invent the original series. Whoever said that someone else can not play Kirk? Whoever said it can not be a woman? And why has there never been a Jewish or Christian representation in a Star Trek series? TV shows, just like books are stories, and how a story is told, is based on the mouth of the teller, or the pen of the scribe. Gene Roddenberry is gone, and is time to tell the story a new way. Finally, the show needs to get back to the business of science. It's a science fiction show that parallels current events, and nothing more. Create a Star Trek series that is compelling, that pushes the boundaries of the imagination, while preserving the utmost realism, and that will be a show that will not only re-invigorate Trekdom, it will create a whole new generation of Star Trek fans. Simply put: The only way to boldly go is to go there boldly.
