lisadoris

As those of you who frequent the Enterprise thread know, I'm writing a paper on the death of my beloved franchise. Now I know the writing sucks, and I know B&B should be burned at the stake.

My question is, what makes a star trek show/movie star trek (aside from the name of course)? Why are we so loyal to this franchise that we'll willingly sit through crap week after week praying it will get better? My professor asked me today why I watch Enterprise if it sucks so badly and there's really no explination.

Help me out ladies and gents.

Damfino

Wizdar has answered this question before and his answer is priceless. I respectfully yield to the master.

Wizdar

Many thanks, Damfino.

But I, too, will yield to He Who Has Honored me by preserving a coupla gems in his sig.

And, I’ll have some more-to-the-point comments in a bit.

(Which means das will probably beat me to it, as usual. )

das Monkey

• Quoth Wizdar •<HR SIZE=1>Which means das will probably beat me to it, as usual. <HR SIZE=1>

Don't get me started ...

I've written about this at length around here many times, but it all stems from one simple foundation: Trek gave us insight into the best and worst of humanity, beating us over the head with our own hypocrisies and inspiring us with our finest qualities. It set a standard for the future, giving us something to strive for, a vision that if we could get past our petty differences, we could be something great. Silly special effects, sometimes laughable speechifying, and none-too-subtle parables for modern society couldn't detract from the underlying message: we are capable of more. Paramount doesn't get this ... Berman and Braga don't get it ... but countless fans were inspired by these simple messages, and some of them changed the world.

Why do we watch Enterprise? I don't know. I don't even consider it "Star Trek" (same with latter seasons of Voyager). Name aside, it's just another action-adventure show, and a bad one at that. Putting a bunch of pretty people in space and calling it "Star Trek" doesn't ... erm ... make it so. I guess I watch out of historical perspective, and in a way, it serves to remind me of how great and special the original series was; hell, is. Try as they might, they can never take that from us.

das

Tscott

I'm sure others will disagree about this but to me Star Trek simply needs:
1) a space ship exploring the universe
2) an non-human character on board (Spock, Data, 7 of 9) to question the logic of the humans and perhaps strive to be more human

This is why DS9 never caught on with me- they weren't exploring, and Oddo (the closest thing to a Spock character) didn't so much try to understand humans as loathe them. And I think I've said before, T'Pol on Enterprise is the most emotional Vulcan I've ever seen, in fact, she could probably give lessons to the rest of the crew if they ever wanted to strive to be more human (as opposed to the one dimentional characters they currently are).

Wizdar

Background: It’s the mid 60s. We got Viet Nam going on and the youth of America is just a little concerned about it. “Establishment” is the enemy, and Nixon eventually proved it.

We also had the space race going on. I have no idea how much influence it had on the public, but following this had to beat following the war. Speaking for myself, I was completely fascinated by it. (The space race, not the war.)

As for TV, there was pretty much nothing on, but that didn’t bother anybody. TV was fairly new, and the first generation to grow up with it was already planted in front of the tube.

We had wonderful programs like Wagon Train [1957-1965], Bonanza [1959-1973], Leave It to Beaver [1957-1963], The Dick Van Dyke Show [1961-1966], you getting the picture? Gilligan’s Island [1964-1967] and I Dream of Jeannie [1965-1970] were starting to break the mold and “The following program is brought to you in living color” was making the future a lot brighter. The audience was experiencing a quantum change in TV programming. Gloryosky, Batman!

Enter Gene Roddenberry. Let’s face it, Gene was not a visionary, he certainly wasn’t a genius, he was an average writer. But he had an idea that was somewhat revolutionary, so they say. (His “Wagon Train to the stars” better described early Lost In Space [1965-1968] than what became Trek.) Outer Limits [1963-1965] had just ended its run, as had Twilight Zone [1959-1965]. Perhaps the Suits at NBC realized there was a void to fill and Lost In Space (CBS) was doing well. Trek was the only thing NBC had.

Gene was in the right place in the right time with the right idea.

But, while Lost In Space was getting lost in Irwin Allen’s silliness and penchant for explosions, bogged down by a lackluster cast (well, except for Judy ), Trek had the one thing going for it that absolutely made the show:



Now, before you start pelting me with beer cans, consider that without him, the chemistry with Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley would not have been anything special. But that’s JMO. It should be sufficient that the “ensemble” concept was working as well or better on the Enterprise than it did on the Ponderosa. It was clear there was something special that would allow fans to forgive stinkers like “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” whilst having a good time with “Mudd’s Women.”

[Sidebar: Many folks today consider “taking chances” episodes like Last Battlefield to be quite brave and are quite supportive of them. I’m of the belief that stuff like that looks good on paper, but ends up sucko on film. The brave thing to do would be trash it. But that’s never done, as proved by “Spock’s Brain,” another example to lay to rest any claim that Roddenberry was a genius.]

We were damn_close to landing on the moon. The Jupiter II had become a farce, and Trek was all we had – and NBC was taking it away. WTF, over?? The activist anti-establishment movement had a lot of experience to rely on and the third season became a reality. Unfortunately.

And then it was gone. And a void failed to be filled for a while. During this void the mythos developed as stated by das. It is canon. Even though Outer Limits had been doing it already (albeit usually from the negative aspect), all this “vision of the future” was hyped by adoring fans suffering Trekus interruptus.

It’s also a load of crap. [Beer cans fly, Wizdar ducks]

Roddenberry was doing what had been done before many times by true masters such as Silverberg, Heinlein, Zelazny, Niven, and Asimov. By comparison, Gene was a two-bit hack. [Have I mentioned “Spock;s Brain” yet?] The big difference is that Trek was given to the masses, and in living color.

The religious-like fervor continued, fed by rumors of syndication (an impossible dream, since 100 episodes was the absolute minimum), movies, a new series, blah blah blah. At this point in the timeline, the question becomes, why did this following continue? Answer: in spite of my apparent badmouthing, Trek was the best damn_thing there was, or would be until Star Wars. As proof, I offer Space: 1949.

Everyone wanted Trek back. The success of syndication proved it could be done. And, lo, the waters parted allowing Trek to end its aimless wandering and ST:TMP was born. The rest is history.

Why are we so loyal? Respect. Trek, for most of you, has always been there. Your folks get old and start to smell funny, but they’re still your folks.

lisadoris, I believe the question was “why do we watch if it sucks?” It is a legacy. It is blasphemy to speak ill of this classic. As you say, there is no explanation, just as there is no explanation for eating McDonalds. People will be sad when the Trek era comes to an end. The same cannot be said for McDonalds.

das Monkey

• Quoth Wizdar •<HR SIZE=1>Trek had the one thing going for it that absolutely made the show:

Spoiler:

William Shatner.

<HR SIZE=1>

It's probably no surprise that I agree with you here. For all the mockery of his acting style on this series, he took the show to another level. He wonderfully bridged the gap between Bones and Spock, providing both the three-way friendship that made the show so endearing and the strength of character Star Trek was aiming for.

While I'd agree with your statements on how the series became a cultural phenomenon, I would like to submit how many people are in love with this show that did not live through the 60s and 70s. There's a whole group of people who grew up with Star Trek in the 80s through local syndication that love it almost as much as those who were there from the beginning. The marketplace is pretty saturated right now and has been for some time, so the fanbase isn't growing, but I mention this to note that while the uber-phenomenon emerged from a unique time in our social and political history, the series still spoke to another generation growing up in a completely different time. IMO, this says a lot about the show. Yes, it was in the right place at the right time, but it also stands on its own.

I think a large part of its success is its simplicity. It didn't take a brilliant mind to see the in-your-face social commentary. It's silly, but I wonder how many people watched 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' and laughed as Bele explains to Kirk that Lokai is clearly inferior, since he's white on the right side of his face ... and then thought, "hey, wait a minute. They're talking about us!" The concepts weren't staggering; they weren't revolutionary; but they were powerful. Most of all, we liked these characters. In Kirk, Spock, and McCoy we saw ourselves, and we enjoyed spending time with them. Even today, I can find entertainment in even the worst episode, simply because I enjoy spending time with the characters. They were a family.

For a while, it was cool to praise Gene as the brilliant Great Bird. Now, it's vogue to bash him as a womanizing hack. The reality is in the middle. In the end, he was just a guy who took classic ideas and made them accessible to the world ... in a time when we needed it. It wasn't simply putting it on TV that made it work, but the combination of good stories, diverse and endearing characters, and a positive outlook for our future. I see the success of the show through the eyes of my mother. She doesn't know the first thing about science fiction literature -- she can't even work her VCR (and that's not a joke) -- but she "gets" Star Trek.

And that brings us full circle to what I was saying earlier. While Trek initially spoke to a certain generation, it really speaks to all generations. Work like Rebel Without a Cause, Easy Rider, and The Breakfast Club helped define generations, but for the most part they only exist within that time. Star Trek has a uniqueness that spans generations. It's possible to dismiss it as just another show that just happened to catch on, but it is more than that. There's something simple and pure and endearing about it that speaks to everyone, and it endures today not just from the loyalty of those of us there from the beginning, but also those who picked it up along the way.

das

P.S. Gene didn't write 'Spock's Brain' ... cut him some slack.

Spooky

Gene Coon had more to do with the sucess of the original Star Trek than Roddenberry ever did. That being said, one of the main reasons Star Trek was so great and recent incarnations haven't been is because of that little thing called chemistry between the cast.

Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley became lifetime friends shooting that series, so when it came time to do the movies, it was like getting together with family. Shatner and Nimoy still see each other often as friends...I doubt that Scott Bakula and Jolene Balock are hanging out together on the weekends.

Plus there's the issue of over-saturation. Star Trek movies used to be an "event", because there was no Star Trek on TV, and only 3 years of the original series (and a season of animated shows) to look back at. Now, there's so many different incarnations of Star Trek, even the most die-hard fan has probably missed some episodes of one series or the other. Too much Trek in too little amount of time = a drop in quality and a diminishing interest in the show.

But what it really comes down to is the writing...the writers for the original Trek and Next Generation (not counting TNG movies) just came up with better stories and ideas than the current writers.

Chew

How can I possibly add anything to all that has been so eloquently said?

except to get the sig in another Trek thread, that is

Wizdar

OOPS!

Thanks das. I knew I could depend on you to keep me honest. And I really didn’t know about “Spock’s Brain.”

And , once again, well spoken. Yeah, you said much of that before. You’ll be called upon to say it again. It’s part of the price you pay for being a TV Talk Legend.

El-Kabong

By the time 3rd season rolled around - of which Spock's Brain is a symptom of - Gene had pretty much washed his hands of the show. He had been dicked around by NBC a whole lot by that point, the network moved the show to a Timeslot of Death, amongst other things. So when Gene stepped back from the show, the stable of great SF writers left too. The guy that more or less took over for him - HE was the one behind the 3rd season train wrecks.

As to the question at hand - what makes Trek what it is, at least to me, is the sense of fun and adventure. The rough and tumble aspects of Kirk, willing to bang a green chick after throwing down in a fistfight with some Klingons, is an aspect that's missing from the new shows. Kirk is a man of action, while Picard is a man of talking and negotiation.

This kind of dovetails back into the characters. Kirk, Spock and McCoy were strongly written characters with really good actors. Even the non-star rolls - Scotty, Sulu, ect - were all top notch actors with some damn find rolls to work with. I've not seen such strong chemistry since - except for Babylon 5. (G'kar and Londo alone easily surpass the Kirk-Spock relationship)

Also, the strong moral center point of the original show is a strong draw for me. Sure it was often written in a broad stroke, not subtle at all - but then you have to remember the era from which the show comes from. Television was not very sophisticated back then, so a low key message would have flown right under everyone's radar.

das Monkey

• Quoth Spooky •<HR SIZE=1>Gene Coon had more to do with the sucess of the original Star Trek than Roddenberry ever did.<HR SIZE=1>

Not a good argument to get into to, but I would say "as much" instead of "more." Coon didn't come along until midway through the first season and was gone by the third. He certainly made numerous great contributions that elevated the show, but the foundation -- and more importantly, the muscle -- was still Roddenberry. What he lacked in writing skills and accountability, he made up for in will, always fighting behind the scenes to drag this show to air. His stubborn determination, considered a flaw by many, is also a significant reason the show didn't fizzle out and die when it had many chances to do so.

das

Wizdar

What he lacked in writing skills and accountability, he made up for in will, always fighting behind the scenes to drag this show to air. His stubborn determination, considered a flaw by many, is also a significant reason the show didn't fizzle out and die when it had many chances to do so.

A-f***ing-men.

Spooky

I said "more" instead of "as much", because both Shatner and Nimoy have said "more" in interviews...I'm assuming they'd know.

My personal opinion is that Leonard Nimoy, Nicholas Meyer and Harve Bennett have more to do with the sucess of Star Trek than anyone who worked on the original show. In other words, I think it was Star Treks II, III & IV that turned the show from a cult classic into a world-wide phenomenon. When those guys stopped being involved, the bottom kind of fell out of the thing...didn't it?

Damfino

Now for my 2 cents...

With few exceptions Science Fiction had always been targeted for kids (comic books, pulp novels, movie serials, etc). The scifi movies of the 50s generally followed this trend and on TV in the 60s Lost In Space followed the tradition of 50s scifi (The fact that Will Robinson was the central character also supports the scifi is for kids tradition).

There were two Science Fiction classics made in the 50s that broke tradition and dealt with much more complicated issues.

The Day the Earth Stood Still introduced an alien that was not a monstrous invader, but rather a concerned member of a more advanced culture whose mission was to warn Earth that its violent history wouldn't be tolerated once we reached for the stars.

Forbidden Planet arrived a few years later as a scifi adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest. This movie clearly influenced the creation of Star Trek and was based on a classic work of literature as opposed to a pulp novel.

When Star Trek arrived on TV in the 60s there was nothing else like it. The writing was generally superb (Even Harlan Ellison wrote a screenplay) and the cast had perfect chemistry. The introduction of a Russian officer (Chekhov) was controversial on prime time TV during the cold war and provided hope for the future (needless to say Roddenberry was right, the cold war is over).

When The Next Generation debuted, the writing was also generally great. The episodes dealt with controversial social issues (The Measure of a Man gave Data his civil rights and Who Watches the Watchers warned of false prophets). The chemistry might not have been as good as Kirk-Spock-McCoy, but it was good enough. In a nutshell Trek was back!

I did have one big problem with TNG though and it was Wesley Crusher in a Will Robinson type role. Fortunately he wasn't a central character so I tolerated him.

After Roddenberry's death, Trek gradually became product instead of art. The writers also started to run out of ideas, but ratings were good enough to keep some kind of Trek in constant production.

Recently, I saw a couple episodes of DS9 which I always though of as a good but not great show and I realized that even DS9 was worlds better than Enterprise.

What's wrong with Enterprise? As others have said, the cast has no chemistry. The stories are frequently obvious rewrites of other Trek shows and ideas are copied from other sources.

Why do I still watch? Misplaced loyalty and optimism that it might get better and the fun of playing MST3K at home and on this board.

Kravjar

I must admit, I watch Enterprise and enjoy it. (Duck to avoid beer bottles.)

I love science fiction. As a sci-fi afeciando, I must admit that 50% of science fiction is crap. I think it's the nature of the beast. So I don't expect that they're always going to be able to "get it" every show on Enterprise. That is we have to have one "Battlefield Earth" for each "Fifth Element" (or more.) And, the same must be said for the original Star Trek, too, if I'm being honest.

But even the worst episodes had great lines. No one at my house can pull a boner without getting: "brain, brain, what is brain?" thrown at them.

Some of you have compared Gene Roddenberry, unfavorably with Sturgeon, Zelezny, Asimov and others. He wasn't even in the same business. He was doing a TV show and raiding the closet filled by those other writers. And hey, he got to do both Nichelle Nichols and Majel Barrett, I (and none of you) did. "Comon' Nichelle, I'll write you some extra lines if you wear the uniform from Mirror Mirror."

So his life was filled with battling network execs as he tried to very innovative things that had only been explored in print previously (and maybe Forbidden Planet).

The environment now is completely different. The networks are 3 out of 99 channels vying for a smidgeon of the available network market. Star Trek must vie with SG-9 and Farscape (oops, sorry) and Lex and Video games and DVDs for audience. Fans are familiar with Star Wars (1,2 and 4,5,6), Alien, Predator, Farscape, and have become much more sophisticated. We've also been jaded by the constant use of the "magic technology finder" from Voyager and TNG. "Oh, we'll spray them with a harmonic stream of radeon particles to reverse the energy density." Which is total crap, if I dare besmirtch TNG without engendering a flame war.

So, judge them all you want. And I will to, but not at 8 to 9 on Wednesday, please. I'm busy.

Well, I had to rant back a bit.

mmconhea

as long as people like these watch it.... it's Star Trek

lisadoris

I think I'll pass on that picture.

Thanks for the insanely thoughtful answers, it will help my paper a great deal. All I can offer in return is a nice citation in my bibliography!

Personally I think there are a couple factors that help the Star Trek name:

1. Relationships. Everyone knows about the Kirk-Spock-Bones trinity and TNG had Data-Geordi-Worf (whether that was the primary relationship the writers were going for I'm not sure but that's who I cared about) and DS9 had the unique ability to create relationships between the entire cast. One reason I disliked Voyager so much is because I didn't care for most of the characters. I'll go out on a limb and say I liked Harry Kim and his relationship with Paris was interesting but it fizzled after awhile. When the only person the audience cares anything about is a holographic doctor; your show's in trouble. Enterprise is trying way too hard to push relationships between characters who don't have any chemistry. The two characters I like (Hoshi and Mayweather) are the two with the least amount of dialogue.

2. Social Commentary: das, I completely agree about Trek providing insights into humanity. When I think about my favorite episodes - Measure of a Man; Far Beyond the Stars; etc. they are always the ones with something to say. If I want mindless dribble where stuff blows up, I can pop a Michael Bay movie into my DVD player, I won't turn on Star Trek. Granted, not every ep provides earth shattering insight into human nature but there's usually a morale in there somewhere. Enterprise tried with the AIDS allagory episode that was just way too heavy handed but "Cogeniter" I think got it right. That ep generated a ton of discussion in various threads all over the Internet.

3. Every academic book on Trek talks about the utopian aspect of the show like its a bad thing. DS9 fudged with this a bit but the utopian future Roddenberry et. al. put forth give us something to shoot for. Because of that, I think the shows are timeless - which is not to say they aren't dated but the ideals presented are what matters. The joy of exploration is always present. I have to disagree with you somewhat Tscott about DS9 and exploration. While TOS, TNG, and VOY were dealing with external space exploration, DS9 was dealing with internal exploration. The figuring out what makes us human wasn't limited to one character; everyone was trying to figure out what they believed in and what was worth fighting for.

As for why I'm still watching Enterprise: I told my professor that most ST shows need three seasons to hit their stride creatively. They have until the end of the season to show me they are capable of doing any of the things people have brought up in this thread. If they can't, I can just watch Ed and not have to worry about setting my Tivo to tape Enterprise. Though I've only been invested in the franchise for about fifteen years, it saddens me to see the downward spiral it's headed in. While it's true that Star Trek used to be the only game in town when it came to sci-fi on TV, a more crowded landscape is no excuse for piss-poor writing and horrible decision making.

Shazam

I'm giving Enterprise a chance. I gave TNG a chance with it's first three seasons (of which seasons 1 and 2 I consider unwatchable).

kvrdave

Personally, I still enjoy the new stuff. Not because it is great, but because it feeds my addiction to Trek. It is the methodone for my heroine. It isn't as good as the original, but it still gets me by.

Shatner can get more across to the audience with an expression than most actors can with a minute of dialog.

Anyway, when people talk about the death of the franchise, how piss poor everything is, etc. I just laugh and remember having heard it after nearly every movie, the launch of every series, etc.

Chew

In those cases, it was stuff like Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and Undiscovered Country that came along and saved it. Now everything that's released (Insurrection, Nemesis, Voyager and Enterprise) seems to bring it ever closer to oblivion.

Wizdar

However, kvrdave's observation supports what I've said at least a coupla times: "don't forget what the P in UPN stands for."

Chew

Is that Pathetic or Piss-poor?

AGuyNamedMike

Preach it, brother!