It occurs to me that September 8th of next year (2006), will be the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. So why am I, a devout Trek fan, not more excited? That this phenomenon has continued and expanded through four decades is actually quite an amazing accomplishment.
However, beyond recognition and appreciation of that and Trek’s ideology, I see — unfortunately-- not much to celebrate about Trek recently. Houston hasn’t seen a decent Trek convention in about ten years. Voyager and Enterprise have been mostly and hugely disappointing series, to the degree that I don’t consider them canon. The last movie, Nemesis, was, uh… well, it was. Let’s just say it could have, and should have, been so much better.
Something was lost in translation. And that’s not just my opinion; the majority of the fans tend to agree, on both accounts.
Since (and including) Voyager, The Franchise ä has been steadily and indisputably declining--- in viewers and in quality (there may be a connection). Declining so much that Enterprise is finally being cancelled --- after only five years, and much stumbling in the dark over its own feet… and after five years in spite of increasingly poor ratings and bad management.
But at least Paramount got enough episodes in the can (double entendre) for syndication. The means justify the end of this Trek. Predecessors The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine each ran for seven years, ending production while they were still relatively successful. Even Voyager somehow also lasted seven years, although it finished with a sense of having over-stayed its welcome and gone mostly nowhere.
When Enterprise goes off the air this year, it will be the first time since 1986 with no new Trek on TV, and there is no new series ready to replace it anytime soon. Nor is there a movie in development, meaning an anniversary marked by the end, at least temporarily, of new on-screen Treks.
Does this mean that Star Trek is dead? Gone to meet its maker? No more? Ceased to be? Pushing up the daisies, as it were?
Naaah. In the words of the equally immortal Monty Python, “It’s just resting.” Which is actually what many fans and critics— such as myself-- have been recommending for a while. Not only is the Franchise tired -- suffering “franchise fatigue,” the creators are exhausted— literally and figuratively. They’ve been working with/ on Trek shows, in some form, virtually non-stop for almost twenty years.
Consensus indicates that Trek has become too abundant, and has over saturated the market. On the theory that absence makes the heart grow fonder (but too much absence makes the heart forget,) Paramount should maybe take a short and indefinite break away from making Star Trek. Allow people who need it some time and space to miss it, desire it, demand it. What’s old is new again?
However, that alone is insufficient. There are also many individuals who suggest that what is seriously needed instead of-- or in addition to-- a vacation is new creative vision. That the problem perhaps isn’t necessarily too much Trek, but not enough Trek done right. The demand is here, these fans insist, but the supply is not adequately satisfying it. This, too, is a good point.
Unable to see the forest for the trees, the creators at Paramount have gradually strayed from and lost sight of the core of Gene Roddenberry’s vision that is Star Trek. It is not just a matter of bringing the future to
us, but bringing us to the future. Trek is about boldly going where no one has gone before. As such, it is progressive and pioneering in its story telling.Or, rather, it used to be. It’s supposed to be.
Now, alleged and so-called Star Trek is about as revolutionary-- and as fulfilling-- as a twinkie… without the cream filling. It simply doesn’t “feel” like Star Trek, to me and to most others. The spirit and soul of Trek is missing, more often than not. Which, effectively, as far as I’m concerned, makes it not Star Trek.
So, no matter how good Voyager or Enterprise might appear to be, it sure isn’t Trek. Just because you stick on the official seal and call it Star Trek does not make it so.
There is an intrinsic and ineffable quality or essence in Trek that is lacking in the pale imitations of what Paramount passed off as Trek during the last several years. An approximate description of this intangible atmosphere could be coherence (and its various synonyms). Ideally, Trek gives an impression that everything and everyone is connected and inter-related. Enterprise and Voyager and Nemesis often seem too disparate and disconnected… from themselves and from the familiar continuity of the Trek universe.
Some among the fandom suggest that the problem is the oversight of producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, and that they should be replaced with someone more competent, and more faithful to the Roddenberry ideal.
A break would still be a good idea, if for no other reason than as an opportunity to find and employ new writers, directors and producers who can provide more innovation and inspiration, as well as rejuvenate the existing ones who are worthy so they may contribute likewise. To rediscover the essential fundamentals of what Star Trek is and means, in order to properly reinvent it. A chance to devise a new and different direction that is invigorated and invigorating. All the while being considerate of the fans, and consistent with beloved Trek ideals and continuity, of course. I gladly offer my services as a creative consultant.
Furthermore, those in charge seem to be trying to cater too much to a general audience, instead of directing it more toward its fan base… and thus alienating both. The inevitable side effect in trying to make Trek appeal to the average person— whom Trek is not for, anyway-- is that the show is dumbed-down. If you try to please everyone all the time, you end up pleasing no one. Trek is, always has been, and always should be a niche market—in the same way as Classical music or water polo, Star Trek is not suitable for all viewers.
The folks at Paramount concede all these as valid explanations and legitimate concerns. What exactly will be or can be done to rectify the situation remains to be seen.
Regardless, even if no new episodes or movies were ever produced again, Trek would live on in memory and the already existing material. Barring some devastating Armageddon, we’ll have The Original Series, Next Generation and Deep Space Nine to enjoy and appreciate for many years. They can’t take that away. Even now, the story continues, and is elaborated on, in novels… several of them excellent. For every end there is a beginning. The mission will continue. Which is appropriate and as it should be.
The general opinion among fans, and The Powers That Be at Paramount, is that Trek is not only NOT dead, but that it is anticipated to live long and prosper for many more decades. Until recently, Trek has always been a big money property for Paramount, and they expect it will be again, eventually. Paramount loves the money, so they certainly won’t abandon their lucrative cash cow so easily, nor cavalierly.Indeed, according to Paramount Studio’s chief Trek executive Rick Berman, there currently are plans and hopes for another Trek project to begin production in the next three to five years. And what is Star Trek if not envisioning hope for the future?
However, beyond recognition and appreciation of that and Trek’s ideology, I see — unfortunately-- not much to celebrate about Trek recently. Houston hasn’t seen a decent Trek convention in about ten years. Voyager and Enterprise have been mostly and hugely disappointing series, to the degree that I don’t consider them canon. The last movie, Nemesis, was, uh… well, it was. Let’s just say it could have, and should have, been so much better.
