|
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/30/2007 9:16:17 AM
Posts: 2, Visits: 7 |
| Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship 'Enterprise'. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
The death of Gene Roddenberry had a great deal of personal meaning for me. I was just a fan, like so many others; I was in my idealistic 20's, waiting passionately for another installment of Next Generation when he died. I had been raised on the original series. I contemplated stars as a child and engaged in amateur astronomy in my youth, primarily based on a nostalgic identification with the themes that Star Trek had inspired in me. Gene died, and while he passed his legacy onto some great visionaries (Piller & Berman & co.), the idea that was his suffered a little bit in me. It hurt me to have him pass from this world.
The Star Trek franchise is so much more than merely a vehicle for advertising dollars to those of us that subsumed the premise of the show into our psyche. It is so much more than the network executives vision of a space-action show crossed with Wagontrain.
It is that idea that the Star Trek franchise inspires in its fans which the network executives seemed to miss. They certainly missed it when they cut three seasons off of Enterprise.
And it is that idea that I'd like some of you all to discuss. I feel, personally, somewhat responsible that Piller and Berman aren't giving the world Star Trek right now. If I'd been a better fan, had communicated more of why Star Trek wasn't just another show, perhaps I could have connected with a few more people, and we'd still have a healthy science fiction vista in front of us. If each of us had done so, I know we could have staved off the advertising decline which struck at the heart of the Star Trek franchise. We'd still be dreaming.
I'll start.
=======================================
A lot of people don't understand science fiction. In their minds it is easily reduced to robots and space ships and people in weird rubber headgear. For me science fiction is nothing short of a vision of who we are, as a species, and what we can be.
The original series gave popular culture many things for which it could be thankful. We no longer had criminals that were merely thieves - we had criminals that were leaders engaging in genocide (Conscience of the King, Patterns of Force); there were visions of racial integration during a time when America struggled mightily with the concept (Plato's Stepchildren - Kirk/Uhura first interracial kiss on television); and the show discussed, and made us think about, all manner of realistic astronomical problems from asteroids destroying the planet (Paradise Syndrome) to disease extinction events destroying our species (Miri, etc.).
The show was a vehicle for a progressive, and forward-thinking view of potential problems that mankind has to face. These aren't trivial and easily solved issues, either. Star Trek, for the time, was a vehicle for considering what makes us human, and what that means for our future fate as a species.
These aren't things which garner a large audience, of course. It is hard to think about things as troubling as the extinction of our species, or the proper orientation of a society to limit dictators and genocide.
The Next Generation (after a slightly rocky start) continued the great legacy before it. We had the nature of human rights passed into Data (Measure of a Man), and all manner of discussions about the nature of the human experience. Particularly poignant are episodes like Chain of Command with Ronnie Cox torturing Patrick Stewart in an episode that Amnesty International found to be accurate and illustrative of torture techniques. Would that American leadership had as much vision about what they command done, every day, in their pursuit of their brand of justice.
But Star Trek wasn't just about preachy ideals of egalitarianism - it promoted it too. Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew did so much more with their roles than be a token black and female captain - they were commanders in their own right. The vehicle of their role was provided to them but they proved, through example, both their own talent, and the impact that all of us can make - regardless of race and gender.
I can't say that I think we wouldn't have American women leaders without Star Trek's example, but I can say that real life mimics fiction more readily than people realize.
The Star Trek franchise has always been there pushing the envelope, and showing humanity more than just what we are, but what we can be.
And that's really why the death of the franchise is something for all of us to think about, consider, and strive to overcome.
It's why I love the series, and its why I show it to my children.
We can be more than we are; Star Trek has always known that. That is a show worth promoting.
____________________________________________________________________________
In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. - Orwell |
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/30/2007 9:16:17 AM
Posts: 2, Visits: 7 |
| I thought I would add some thoughts on the "What Star Trek means to me" front regarding the various characters we've encountered in the Star Trek universe.
One of the more brilliant areas of Star Trek characterization has been the internal conflict theme which many of the actors brilliantly portrayed. Usually these are my favorite characters. It is one of the reasons (among many) that I pretty much disliked the James T. Kirk character from the beginning - the character had few fatal flaws, and very little internal conflict.
Spock: This is the classic example: half human and half vulcan. The creation of this character within the original series well set up the dichotomy on the logic/emotion front, and constructed an interesting character survey on parentage and how internal conflicts in us all play out through our assuming the identity of two different people: our parents. I've always loved this character.
Picard: A great example of someone who is the authority figure, and yet, who, at heart, is an anti-authority civil libertarian. The constant conflict between obeying orders and doing what is right is what made Next Generation such a quality show; this theme still encourages me to show it to my children.
Sisko: A strong character that had to reconcile duty to his family (his son) and duty to his profession. Constantly Sisko had to weigh how to raise his son, and yet, do it on the dangerous fringe of space. It was a fine character study of a father. I loved watching Avery Brooks play with this innate conflict that all of us fathers have to reconcile. Each of us, in some way, must provide for our family with a profession and yet still provide for our family in an emotional/protective sense. Brooks mastered this topic.
T'Pol: continuing the vulcan internal character strife was a fine idea with Enterprise, and the romance sub-plot of Trip and T'Pol drove the fourth season in many respects. How exactly do the repressed vulcans keep the yearning/striving/boundless energy of romantic love in check? It's a fine question that fans didn't mind watching (sometimes with a guilty pleasure) night after night.
Hoshi: The most insecure (yet watchable) Star Trek character. I could never stand Reg Barkley; though the portrayal was spot on, I couldn't take him easily on the screen. It isn't easy to keep an insecure character simultaneously sympathetic without occasionally falling over into sniveling. Linda Park on the other hand absolutely nailed this role. Hoshi strives to maintain her professionalism while overcoming her various limitations (claustrophobia, fear of the unknown, fear of transporters, etc.). This is the sort of characterization which makes someone a hero. While Scott Bakula did a fine job with his role, like James Kirk, there just wasn't enough internal conflict to make the Archer character inspiring. Hoshi, on the other hand, made just going into space look like a hero's job - and Park does the job admirably. Vanishing Point is one of my favorite Enterprise episodes, not only because we get the standard degree of fine acting out of Park, but also because the character makes us feel like space travel is an endeavor all people could do; if only we could overcome our limitations and recognize our talents, we can achieve goals which really do set us apart.
A great modern character is more than just heroic proportions with accidental flaws like Achilles - it is a contrast of sometimes disparate elements which the sum of the whole reconciles (or not in the case of destructive characters). Star Trek had its share of great characters. It was so much more than just a Space Opera - it occasionally achieved Art.
Not something you get to say about very many television shows these days.
____________________________________________________________________________
In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. - Orwell |
| |
|
|