What are the lessons Star Trek teaches us? Does Star Trek have a clear moral compass? Is it consistent, or does it evolve over time? Did you really expect me to have the answers? Of course not.
Instead, I offer these series-by-series nuggets:
TOS: Do the right thing. However, the right thing will change from week to week, depending on who wrote the script.
TAS: The universe is confusing. Just go with it. Nothing lasts longer than 24 minutes anyway.
TNG: If you do the right thing, all will be well, because those are the rules.
DS9: Out here on the frontier, the rules are fungible. Do the best you can. Mostly just try not to start a war or a religion. But if you do, you’d better prevail. At both.
VOY: One for all and all for getting home.
ENT: Doing the right thing will generally get you absolutely nowhere, but pay it lip service from time to time because your series has an inferiority complex.
DSC: Doing the right thing will seriously mess you up, because streaming TV is dark 'n gritty.
PIC (speculative): The rules are back, but in a more neutral color palette.
Before I go, I'd like to take a moment to recognize that, at times, Star Trek really does deliver some profound insights with intelligence and subtlety. And sometimes, it's more like this:
First, the news: An animated Star Trek series is coming to Nickelodeon. Cool!
And now, a long, seemingly pointless story. The dots will be connected by the end. Promise.
A couple of days ago, I stumbled across this MeTV list of forgotten, mostly short-lived 1970s sci fi shows. To me, it was like unearthing buried treasure. That’s my TV generation, and I do dearly love me some cheesy sci fi. In this glorious age of YouTube, most of this stuff is readily available, so I randomly picked one to watch: a live-action Saturday-morning kids’ show from Filmation called Ark II. It's about some young scientists and a talking chimp (no, really), all of whom have biblical names (even the chimp), driving a futuristic RV called -- surprise! -- Ark II around a post-apocalyptic Paramount Ranch…ummm, I mean, Earth…to bring salvation…ummm, I mean, science…to a humanity that has reverted to primitive, ignorant lawlessness. It was reeeeally something. Like much of the TV of its day, it's a bizarre combination of entertaining ideas, social commentary, cheesy writing, bad acting, cheap production values, and some choices that do not hold up well after 40 years (like guest star Jonathan Harris (aka Dr. Smith) doing a dreadful Irish accent as the adult leader of a group of vagrant boys, many black, who call him...I kid you not...Master Fagin).
So anyway, my friend Chris (god bless Chris, he’s into pop-culture nostalgia even more than I am) comments that he thinks the futuristic RV was made for the George Peppard sci fi movie Damnation Alley, to which I respond, "Apparently not," because by then I’d watched the behind-the-scenes Ark II documentary made for the DVD release (NB: I have no life), where I learned that they actually built the vehicle for this series (and that it kept falling apart and was nearly undrivable).
So then – stay with me – my friend Cory pipes in with, “Wasn't there an RV-themed SF movie with John Saxon and Lurch? Was it Planet Earth with the Dinks?”
Now THIS is where it really starts to get interesting, because all kinds of bells go off in my head.
Cory is correct. Not only that: Planet Earth was a Gene Roddenberry TV movie/series pilot, a reworking of an earlier pilot he did, Genesis II. Both were set on post-apocalyptic Earth and dealt with the decline and rebirth of civilization. This is how Wikipedia describes Genesis II: “The film, which opens with the line, ‘My name is Dylan Hunt. My story begins the day on which I died,’ is the story of a 20th-century man thrown forward in time to a post-apocalyptic future, by an accident in suspended animation.” And Planet Earth "was the second attempt by Roddenberry to create a weekly series set on a post-apocalyptic future Earth. The previous pilot was Genesis II, and it featured many of the concepts and characters later redeveloped and mostly recast in Planet Earth.”
I have to rewatch to see if there was a futuristic RV in either or both. It’s been decades since I’ve seen them. In fact, I think the only time I’ve ever seen Planet Earth in its entirety was in a screening at a Star Trek convention sometime in the mid-1970s, when I was about 13 or 14. Everything about the experience weirded me out. Not only had Gene Roddenberry made something other than Star Trek (somehow it hadn’t occurred to me that that was possible), but he’d made this thing about a bleak future where women oppressed men by keeping them drugged, which, I suppose, in hindsight, was meant to be some kind of feminist statement made via relatable role reversal, but to me back then just seemed ultra-creepy and misogynistic. At least, that’s my recollection some 40 years later. (Seems like my memory is pretty good. From Wikipedia: “The pilot focused on gender relations from an early 1970s perspective. Dylan Hunt, confronted with a post-apocalyptic matriarchal society, muses, ‘Women's lib? Or women's lib gone mad?’”) Be that as it may, it was pure Roddenberry, moralizing on a contemporary issue in the context of a futuristic sci fi setting.
Anyhow, it certainly seems likely that Roddenberry’s two pilots inspired the kid-friendly, dumbed-down, talking-chimp-inclusive, morality-play-of-the-week Ark II. After all, it’s not like post-apocalyptic sci fi was common on TV. And the dates line up: Genesis II was 1973, Planet Earth was 1974, and Ark II was 1976. The similarities in the heavy-handed biblical titles between Genesis II and Ark II are surely not coincidental, either. And of course, the influence of Star Trek itself is apparent, in everything from the costume design to the cast diversity (a white man, an Asian woman, a Latino teen, and, of course, a chimp) to the thinly veiled social commentary. To seal the deal, Filmation, which produced Ark II, also produced Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973-1974).
Which brings me back to where I started: the announcement of a new Star Trek animated series, to be produced by CBS’ Eye Animation Productions, Secret Hideout, and of course -- Roddenberry Entertainment.
So what's it going to be like? Here’s a description from Indiewire: “The series will feature CG animation and follow the adventures of a group of lawless teens who discover a derelict Starfleet ship. Faced with such temptation, these young rebels will use the ship and along the way, learn life lessons and search for meaning and salvation.”
So basically, Ark II with a spaceship instead of a futuristic RV? (Cue music: “It's the circle of life,
And it moves us all…”)
And...hang on...didn't Discovery just get thrown into the distant future? Will there be some Federation-style civilization rebuilding? Hmm...
See, I told you I’d connect the dots.
Compare the opening of Planet Earth:
to the very similar opening of Ark II:
both cousins to the traditional Star Trek opening we know so well (here from TAS), about finding new civilizations rather than rebuilding an old one:
An old friend on Facebook asked for recommendations about consuming the whole Trek-chilada, so of course, I had Things To Say.
***Rolling up sleeves, cracking knuckles***
You knew I would jump on this, right? HERE WE GO.
It's impossible to say what you can/should skip, because it's entirely a matter of personal taste. Many people (like your friend above) hate Enterprise and will tell you not to bother. I, on the other hand, think Enterprise beats the living daylights out of TNG, which I think is much cheesier. So you are about to embark on hundreds of hours of TV viewing to decide for yourself. So my recommendation is to watch in broadcast order, which is not the internal chronological order (ENT is a TOS prequel, after all), but gives you the sense of the conceptual evolution of the franchise. In other words, broadcast order is internal-logic order. So my viewing order would be:
TOS: Cuz it's first and best, duh.
The Animated Series: OK, no one includes this, but YOU SHOULD. TAS is weird as hell. The animation quality is the lowest of the low. But the stories themselves range from dumb cartoon to surprisingly sophisticated -- so much so that you quickly come to realize why this series totally failed as a children's cartoon. Bonus: There's one episode that takes place on Vulcan that offers some interesting insight into Vulcan culture you'll get nowhere else. Extra bonus: When we were kids and TAS was first broadcast, it was on Saturday mornings, which meant I couldn't watch. So instead, I read the novelizations by Alan Dean Foster. This is actually not a bad way to tackle this part of the ST canon, because, as I said, the animation quality is terrible, and the stories have to be stripped down to the bare minimum to fit a 1/2 hour cartoon, so the novelizations are actually superior.
The TOS movies: 1 & 5 are the worst and most skippable. The rest are super-groovy-rad. Enjoy.
TNG: Oy. I will never understand the appeal for so many fans. It certainly got better as it went along (the first couple of seasons are truly painful), but I find most of the characters really hard to take, and if I never see another holodeck episode, it'll be too soon. Poor Wesley Crusher took the brunt of fan hate, but it's Troi I want to throw out an airlock. That said, there are more than a few very good episodes (spread thinly over 7 seasons!), and obviously a ton of vital world-building. Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner are great; I like Q and the Borg (though Q gets overused and loses much of his luster). As tempted as I am to say just skip the first couple of seasons, canon is canon, and you'll be confused later if you don't know it, however painful it might have been to sit through. (I'm looking at you, "Skin of Evil.") TNG is a good choice for watching while cleaning or paying bills.
TNG movies: Now that you know my feelings about TNG, you won't be surprised to learn that I never saw any of these after the first one. This is the only ST I have not seen. Make of that what you will.
DS9: You may have heard that there was much kerfuffle about its similarity to J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5, and who stole what from whom. IMO DS9 clearly did rip off B5's concept, and B5 is overall better because of its more heavily serialized, planned-out story line. That said, DS9 is much better than TNG, in large part because Roddenberry wasn't involved, and his "characters aren't allowed to be in conflict with each other" rule was dropped. At the moment I'm nearly though rewatching the whole series for the first time since it aired, and it really holds up. I find that I like Sisko much better this time around. Initially, Avery Brook's weird, stilted line delivery bugged the crap out of me, but I guess you just get used to it when binging. While there are certainly quite a few weak filler episodes, overall I find the acting in this series to be much better than TNG, and it's very easy to binge. It keeps me company while cooking. Enjoy.
VOY: Such a mixed bag. They started with an interesting premise of a combined Federation and Maquis crew lost on the far side of the galaxy, then quickly abandoned everything that was interesting about it. And Janeway is my least favorite commanding officer. And, while DS9 is beginning to do more serialized storytelling, VOY is still heavily episodic, which by the late 90s already felt antiquated. A lot of people see VOY as TNG-lite. But IMO, the fact that the premise builds in a higher level of jeopardy for this series actually helps keep up a level of dramatic tension that TNG usually lacks. VOY is another good choice for multitasking viewing.
ENT: I will go to my grave defending this much-maligned series. Yes, the Rod Stewart-sounding theme song is painful (and yet it grew on me upon rewatch in ways I am ashamed to admit). Yes, they shamelessly used T'Pol in teen-titillating ways that gratuitously sexualized an inherently good character. Yes, the characterization of Jonathan Archer is somewhat inconsistent. And yet I find it overall to be a much more ripping yarn than anything told by TNG or VOY. I think the third season Xindi story arc, created in response to 9/11, is bloody good (literally). I think the story of a Vulcan woman grappling with inner demons is the most compellingly complex characterization ST gave us up to that point. I think Shran is a wonderful character. I don't want to spoil anything, but this series goes to places with character relationships that breaks the suffocating rules of drama previously aimed at a male teen demographic. Sit down and watch this. Give it a chance. It does not disappoint.
Without a doubt, Saru is one of Discovery’s breakout characters. Also without a doubt, this is due in large part to the amazing performance of Doug Jones, who imbues Saru with so much soul, dignity, and powerful poignancy that he tugs at your heartstrings every moment he’s onscreen. But there’s also something about his species. Star Trek is famous for giving us aliens who capture something about our times and embody them in a way that only sci fi can.
In the 1960s, a time of cultural upheaval, when Americans began looking at philosophies from other parts of the world for answers to our problems, we got Spock, the embodiment of the cool, emotionally subdued, exotic East. And yes, that is as problematic as it sounds. Star Trek’s reductive treatment of cultural characteristics was an inherently flawed affair, as has been much discussed over the years; it was progressive in its attempt at cultural inclusion, even as it was also offensive in its stereotypes. (And yes, I’m well aware of the Vulcans’ Jewish roots as well. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.)
And of course, there were the Klingons. Born of the Cold War, over time they morphed into the foreign threat of the day, but always with a patina of uncivilized aggression that suggests sketchy racial overtones. In Discovery, we see again the tension between this reductive approach (Disco Klingons suggest the religious animus of radical Islam) and the more progressive contemporary impulse to understand and recognize commonality with the enemy (they’re not just aggressive lunatics, they’re understandably threatened by the Federation’s inherent cultural imperialism and ham-fisted diplomacy that fails to grasp the nuances of Klingon culture).
The list goes on: the Borg, TNG's most terrifying aliens, created at a time when we began to fear that the depersonalizing effects of technology might be catastrophic; the Cardassians, a highly successful, authoritarian, hegemonic race from an era when American dominance was beginning to flag; the Xindi, a post-9/11 existential threat to Earth; the Ferengi, emblematic of the ultra-capitalist, materialistic, me-generation boom years (whose disturbing resemblance to racist caricatures of Jews has been much remarked upon); etc. All things considered, Star Trek has an impressive track record of creating carefully differentiated, meaningful alien races.
Which brings us back to Saru and the Kelpiens, a species bred as prey, attuned to threat, sensitive to the coming of death, always in fear.
Welcome to 2017, the age of American anxiety.
Generalized anxiety; a constant companion, especially among younger people, manifesting in many ways and taking up an enormous amount of everyone's energy. It’s the hallmark of an entire generation, certainly in America, and arguably elsewhere.
The anxiety of marginalized groups: people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ, the poor, Muslims, Jews, women, and more. All feeling constantly under attack, threatened by forces both institutional and cultural. Always waiting for the other shoe to drop. Voicing their concerns in ever greater numbers, but somehow never seeming to make a dent.
Political anxiety; the horrifying spectacle of an America led by an incompetent, immoral, unhinged fear-monger who scapegoats every vulnerable group and distorts reality in order to manipulate his fear-driven base. And not just in America; the spread of propaganda, doublethink, and division the world over in service of the consolidation of power in the hands of an oligarchy.
Fear; the sense that we are not safe. Mass killers striking without warning. Gun proliferation. School lockdown drills. Data breaches and identity theft. The cognitive dissonance of security measures that are meant to keep us safe, but feel more like violations themselves.
Economic anxiety; a feeling of financial insecurity that haunts all but the wealthiest.
Epistemic anxiety; the sense that we are losing our ability to function as a society because we no longer have a shared understanding of reality. My facts are not your facts; my evidence is not your evidence; my truth is not your truth.
In this age of anxiety, the Kelpiens, beings whose defining attribute is fear, which they have elevated to a superpower (not a coincidence that the same theme appears in Doctor Who just a couple of years earlier), strike a deep chord. Who among us doesn't have metaphoric threat ganglia? Once again, Star Trek aliens turn our TV screens into mirrors that reflect us: our culture, our world view, and our sense of self.
But like the Star Trek aliens who have come before, this reductive exercise isn’t without its problems. What are the implications of getting us to identify with a species whose DNA dooms them to victimization? In the time of Black Lives Matter, Dreamers, Me Too, Pride, etc. — do we really want to be summed up by an alien race that was bred as prey -- or for that matter, that was bred at all? I'm sure that’s a question destined to be much debated as Discovery consolidates its position in the Star Trek universe.
