Slashdot Mirror
Salon Writes on The Troubles with "Trek"
Splatta was the first to write with us with article currently running on Salon about the possible end of the Star Trek "idea". The story is well researched with commentary from Paramount, Leonard Nimoy and others about what's happened to the Star Trek story over the last several years and "the indignites of age". Is it the end of Trek? What do you think? Is the franchise dying?
Like you, Tarnar, I am a longstanding fan of both old and new Star Trek. But I think the author raised some salient points and you are therefore wrong to dismiss him out of hand as a 'bitter fan'.
I agree he was a bit tough on Berman; I thought there were some really outstanding TNG episodes and I did come to care about the characters. I was very sad to see the series end. However, his assertions about Berman's attitude to TOS are certainly food for thought. It's very disapointing that Paramount would have brought him into the franchise in the first place if he had such a poor understanding of it (this is of course assuming that these assertions are true).
Secondly, Paramount certainly did franchise the thing to death, which kind of "wore out" the magic to some extent. Worst of all was putting out two series at the same time. Why on earth would Paramount do that when it would inevitably make people cease to hunger for it?
The studio never ever cared a bean about the possible significance of Trek beyond its profit potential, and they even mismanaged that in the end, sacrificing long-term appeal for the sake of increasing Trek revenue in the immediate short term.
As an aside: perhaps as a consequence of this glut of Star Trek some networks started screwing with their schedules and it became more or less impossible to know exactly when the next episode was going to be broadcast. It just wasn't unique or special enough to take pride of place any more, with so much of it about, especially when you include reruns: even in the UK at one point there would be maybe half a dozen different episodes of various ST series broadcast in a single week. That's just plain overdoing it. But ultimately it's Paramount's fault for milking its cash cow too hard and too often.
But there's nothin new about this. Parallels have already been drawn with the cheapening of the Star Wars franchise (Ewoks movies ferchrissake!!!).
Video and film are the new narrative tradition, and are as important to our culture as oral storytelling and literature have been. Unfortunately you just can't trust Philistine money-fixated studio execs with such an important legacy. They are the reason why there is so much crap, and why the few good things that emerge despite them either meet an untimely end (the Dr Who TV series) or are perverted to satisfy mass market expectations (the Americanised Dr Who TV movie) or get milked to death like Star Trek.
I just wanted to say one other thing: the only good idea for a new Trek series I ever heard was the Captain Sulu/USS Excelsior one. Pity they never suggested doing the same for Captain Scott. Look back at those TOS episodes; he was one outstanding bridge officer.
But even so, the best thing to ensure the world doesn't get terminally sick of the whole thing would be to veto any new series for now and maybe even restrict syndication for a while too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
TNG was uneven, and those who refuse to admit that should be made to watch the "planet of somewhat clad bodybuilders" episode from the first season until they cry "uncle". TNG had some great episodes. The first half of "The Best of Both Worlds" was some of the most exciting TV SF I've seen. The second half was a sorry excuse for the beginning of a season (make them go to sleep? This is a fearsome enemy?) But that's OK. Unevenness at least proved they were trying, aspiring to SOMETHING. Voyager is not... uneven. It's quite bland all the way through. Sigh. Sometimes I turn on the TV and find Voyager and hope too much. I watch what might be a good episode, and my roommate says "it's all going to be a dream, you know. They can't actually be allowed to change things in this series." He's always right, of course.
TOS was campy and sometimes truely bad (e.g. "Spock's Brain"), but there were times that that show succeded at something that TV SF had never done before (in the US anyhow): it made people THINK. There was a hue and cry over the inter-racial kiss. They even tried to explore (a little poorly, I admit) the phenomenon of hippies, which was a very touchy subject at the time (unless you were just slapping them down outright). They touched on the subjects of hatred, slavery and compassion. And, in the end it was just a much better show than TNG could ever have been because the studio was convinced it would fail. With TNG they would never have been allowed to show an actual gay couple kissing (in fact even a man-turned-woman kissing the Dr. goodbye was changed to a kiss on the wrist), but given the political climate of the times, that would be the exact political equivalent of the Kirk/Uhura kiss. I am not saying that this political topic had to be explored, but the fact that it could not be was quite telling.
Why couldn't TNG forge into unknown territory politically? Because the studio thought the show could be a success. It did not have TOS' luxury of assumed failure.
Same with Babylon 5 / Crusade. Straczynski was left alone to do Babylon 5, and challenged the viewers to re-invent TV SF in their minds. When he went to do Crusade, he found that the industry had never changed. He was just under their radar screen the first time around.
It's not really Rick Bremman or Gene Roddenbury or JMS or Majel Barrette-Roddenbury (pardon misspellings) who have caused any of this. They try to varying extents to make their shows great. But, Hollywood is a scary town and perceived profit is like chum in the water for sharks. The Ferrengi start to look like the good guys....
There are a lot of reasons why Trek is in the state that it's in, but the main ones are Rick Berman and Paramount itself. In some ways, the death of Trek started in its own popularity.
Trek is a massive cash cow for Paramount, a major franchise for them. Because of this, they're far less likely to do anything that would cut off that revenue flow. Basically, they can't take risks whith the story, because that might cause people to stop buying Trek stuff, and take a few precious pennies away from Paramount.
Rick Berman is equally afraid of losing that income, because it would mean him losing his job. Now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps this is because higher-ups have tied his hands. He's not the kind of person who can revitalize the franchise.
By far, the best thing to do is to end Voyager gracefully and end the Trek franchise for a while. Bring it back with new blood in a few years, and bring it back to the spirit of the original, episodes and characters that actually take chances and make the audience think. Then, maybe, Trek can get back to where it should be.
Star Trek was a wonderful phenomenon to watch. The original series could really stand on its own, even given the extreme level of schmaltz. The fan-base was an unheard of phenomenon for a TV show.
:-|
But it's been a long, slow downhill slide. The movies were always uneven, but the recent offerings even make The Great Bird's self-indugent outing in ST:TMP look like art. Voyager episode quality can be measured in terms of how much of the plot can be said to have actually happened at the end of the episode, and no one on the set of any recent ST production (TV or movie) actually takes it seriously beyond their own task. It's just a business, now (this last from various sources at media cons and through the Net).
Look at what's been going on meanwhile: Babylon 5, Earth: Final Conflict, Farscape, X-Files. Even Reboot has plots that Voyager could learn a few things from. I'm not saying that other shows are perfect. Babylon 5's "Grey 17 Is Missing" provoked creator J. Michael Straczynski to lament not being able to apologize to each and every fan individually. But these shows try to explore what can be done with TV science fiction. Star Trek is interested in finding a way to increase the franchise market-share, and not much else.
I'm not actually trying to bash Star Trek, here. What I'm trying to say is that the good people involved in that show would be far better served trying to create something new and innovative. Those who desperately cling to the franchise because it's the only way to assure a market should be quietly taken out and shot. It's just more humane that way. After all, they shoot producers, don't they?
Perhaps in 20 years, the fan base will rise again to provoke a new generation of studio execs to re-create the mythos again. Until then, even the hint that ST's days may be numbered is welcome news in these quarters...