"Can Anybody Remember When We Were Explorers?"

Sorry, but it's time to pontificate a little. Please don't flame me into crispy bits.

Of all the science fiction shows, movies and books out there, I'd have to say that my favorite of all time is definitely Star Trek. Why? Because, unlike the vast majority of science fiction shows and movies today, Star Trek, at its very best, presented an optimistic view of the future.

In Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, mankind had put aside his conflicts. Poverty and disease were eliminated, and finally, there was peace among the human family. Mankind, instead of going out to conquer the universe, used cooperation with his fellow humans and alien friends to advance forward, bringing benefits to all. The other societies they had met, by and large, were also peaceful, having advanced enough to the point of realizing that war and conquest are foolish and self-destructive enterprises.

Such an optimistic approach was why it appealed to so many people, so broadly across the board. And that, I suggest, is why the franchise has fallen so out of favor with the world.

Star Trek has become my least favorite science fiction show, and this is why.

As Star Trek entered the 21st century, it became less and less about peaceful exploration and more and more about warfare, to boldly kill where no man has killed before. Gene Roddenberry, even before he was about to die, saw his dream changed, from a show about the exploration of the universe, to about evil James Bond-like villains trying to blow earth up, and the mighty Federation (which, in Roddenberry's opinion could not have more than a few hundred ships) was changed into a mammoth with tens of thousands of starships. No more was Roddenberry's dream of the future viable, or appealing, in the eyes of the producers, and even many fans.

As fans begged for more action, with bigger and more powerful starships to blow stuff up with, the producers, naturally, gave their fan base exactly what they asked for--and in the process, the very thing that made Star Trek so broadly appealing was lost.

As the year 2000 came and went, it was plainly evident that Star Trek, after coming off it's very highest ratings around the time of First Contact, was losing its soul. The new generation of fans, not valuing the notions that Gene Roddenberry's hippy generation valued, rewarded the producers with applause as they continually changed Star Trek into an action-oriented show. The Enterprise no longer was about peaceful exploration, but now carried a contingent of heavily armed soldiers aboard in order to fight with new enemies that seemed to crop up every episode.

As the fans of the original series and the excellent TNG series saw the show changing in front of them, they stopped watching, and instead turned to the past shows to once again relive the fresh, optimistic view of the galaxy again. The very notion of entertainment should be obvious--what better way to escape the real world's troubles than to step into another, better one for a while?

Sadly, Picard, in ST:Insurrection, was more right than maybe the writers thought--indeed, who could remember when the people of Star Trek were explorers?

How right you are. Violence seems to be the biword for these days. And we really do need to get away from it all once in a while.

I got to somewhat agree with you FattyPants. I remember watching the original Star Trek when I was 11 or 12 and thinking, this is how the world should be, the perfect vision of the future. This hope continued with the TNG. But just as the real world changed, so did the Star Trek Universe. How realistic is it to think that every alien met could be talked to or reasoned with? How realistic is it to think that all humans would be happy and have no problems in the universe. So the writers for DS9, the TNG movies and even Voyager, showed us a different side of Star Trek. To me it made for a more rounded view of the future. The idealism of the Federation when met by adversity, how they cope with it and go on. I wish there was a series that delt with the aftermath of the Dominion War and how the Federation copes and rebuilds (though a number of new books have delt with this, so I guess I'll have to be satisfied with that). So it comes down to an old argument Idealism vs. Realism. There is a place for both. Many days I want nothing more than, as you put it, "to escape the real world's troubles than to step into another, better one for a while", but as someone who follows all things Star Trek, I got to say I like the more rounded, fuller look at the future. So whichever way you want it, there is a Star Trek for you.
That being said, I do think it's time for a return to exploration within the Star Trek Universe. But without a current series, the best we can hope for is Star Trek books. The new Titan series is supposed to be about exploration and discovery in uncharted space, so I have high hopes for it.

[lennier1]

It´s sad but I can only agree. IMHO Trek has lost its soul. That´s why it needs at least a few years of pause before someone should attemot to revive the TV/movie branch of the franchise. In the meantime there´s still the books. We can only hope for good authors who´ll prove that there´s still hope for Star Trek.

You make a good point, Dekelso.

Certainly, there have been those in the Federation and elsewhere that have proven themselves implacable enemies. For instance, there was the Borg, as well as the conspirators in Star Trek VI, who wanted to keep the conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire alive, afraid that they would lose their positions as the two began dismantling their defenses.

Certainly those are cases when conflict led to some very entertaining and intriguing plotlines.

But in ST:Enterprise, I couldn't help but notice that the entire "enemies that want to destroy the humans" idea was taken in the opposite extreme, and became the only plotline. Suddenly, the evil villains started showing up everywhere. The peaceful ones became the exception.

Gene Roddenberry had said that most aliens, who had advanced enough to interstellar travel, had also advanced beyond war of any kind. A good example of an excellent and intriguing plot line without conflict is the episode "Shore Leave" from the original series. It takes a simple notion of an amusement park and extends it quite nicely.

In that case, the story wasn't about a malevolent enemy, but rather a simple misunderstanding on both sides. It was a very enjoyable episode. Also, "The City on the Edge of Forever" was another good episode that didn't include an evil alien trying to kill people.

You're right, though, that there is a place for evil aliens in Star Trek. There is also a place for evil friends, too, as in the case of ST:VI. Put all together, it leads to a richer experience for everyone. The point, after all, is to indulge in some entertainment. And Star Trek, at its best, was definately very entertaining.

I slightly disagree...

I like the darker version of Trek because it is more true to human nature, it is one thing to create a backstory were humanity has come together, that is a postive spin on a world dominated by nationalism (Even more so in the 60's) but at the same time even an enlightened non nastionlist human is at its very core a human.
The Gene Roddenberry version of Star Trek, seemed rather atrifical to me.

Dave

I see your point about it seeming more real, the darker side of Trek. But we live in a darker world, so anything that is otherwise would naturally seem artificial to us. But the root word of artificial is "art", remember.

Edit: oh yeah! That quote from Insurrection is wrong. "Can anybody remember when we used to be explorers?" is how it's supposed to read. I think.

Ok this is what I mean by unnatutral, when you look at the characters and the stories of TNG nobody every made the wrong choice, nobody ever did anything wrong. Humanity was shown as near perfect and the ultimate of morality, that felt artificial to me. One of my favorite TNG episodes "Yesterdays Enterprise" was one of the view episodes that ever put the characters in a situation were their was no right choice...

On the otherhand, when you watch DS9 or even Enterprise, you the flaws of these people and watching the shows it became easier to relate to the characters.

Dave

You're right. It's easier to relate to people who aren't perfect, who are mere mortals like us.

Like Picard in First Contact. He succumbs to vengeful rage and wants to make the Borg pay, even though that betrays everything he believed mankind had thrown away in its quest to be better.

In that case, it did prove that he was imperfect, that even great men fall short, make mistakes. However, if it weren't for the backstory that mankind had moved past its warlike ways, Picard's arc would not have been as profound or poignant. Picard was a man brought down from the morality mankind had learned to adopt, all by a quest for revenge, and the "primitive" Lily is the one that points it out to him.

Because of that, it shows that there are other ways humans can fail besides being made to go to war with someone. I wasn't saying that the episodes which show a human failing on the part of a character were bad, but that the general direction toward a more confrontational style of writing is in poor taste and detracts from Gene Roddenberry's original idea. And the fact is that it's not right in my mind to take apart a man's dream and convert it into something we would like, even if that man has been dead for over a decade now.

But as for your point that flaws made the characters more human and easier to relate to, I have to agree 100% with you.

when was the last time they boldly went were no one has gone before...

Space--the final warzone. These are the conquests of the starship Enterprise. Her five-year mission: to seek out new life and extinguish it. To boldly kill where no man has killed before!

*Cue space music with spaceship wooshing by in flames.*

I'm a second generation trekkie. I grew up watching TOS with my Dad, and still love it best - enough so that I'm willing to pay for a set of DVDs that costs more than all three extended edition LOTR movies combined, per season.

I like TNG, generally enjoy DS9, dislike VOY, and can't actually watch Enterprise.

And a big part of that priority is indeed the optimism present in the earlier shows. What makes (for me) TOS superior to TNG is, as was mentioned, the flaws present in the characters of the earlier shows. Kirk does stupid things, makes bad choices, and manages to win out in the end. Picard (much as I prefer Patrick Stewart as an actor) does not, and that makes him so much less approachable.

But, if we leave aside Enterprise (which I will, since I don't watch it and am therefore not qualified to comment on it), is it really that Trek has lost it's soul? Or is it simply that the story ended. That we've taken the universe, and the setting, as far as it can go (and probably a little bit farther.)

Yes, it changed. Popular entertainment is a reflection of the time it is made in, and science fiction even more so. But I think that saying "it lost its soul" is... how do I want to put this? To harsh on the producers.

To me, the story fufilled it's potential. And then got dragged on a little far; I don't think it's that the maker gave up or "sold out," simply that there isn't really a place (though there is probably a need) for an unrelentingly happy tale.