The Trek future?
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Star Trek: Alternative Futures
by William S. Kowinski
Now that '>Star Trek: Enterprise has come to its premature end and the infrastructure that supported Star Trek on television for the past 18 years has disbanded, the future of the Star Trek "franchise" is in doubt.
As Leonard Nimoy reminded me last summer, laughing the entire time, Star Trek has been dead before. The original series was nearly cancelled after the first season, just about cancelled after the second season, and declared dead after the third. Then a decade later it was resurrected for one and only one movie '>("Star Trek: THE Motion Picture as Nimoy says). When the actors gathered for each of the next four original cast movies, they never officially were told there would be another one. Then came their sixth, and by then, there was no question that Star Trek was alive: after all, it had reproduced, and was considered very fertile.
Now several years after its first real big screen financial failure (although when the DVD and other income gets factored it, it's doubtful even '>Nemesis will have lost money) and its first series since the first to be cancelled before the ideal (for moneymaking) seven year lifespan, Star Trek is dead again.
There are so many factors involved in whether there will be new Star Trek stories on TV or at the movies that predicting a single future is unrealistic. Some of those factors are: judgments of new management at Paramount, creative leadership, the pros and cons of the established fan base, potential audience in the next several years beyond that fan base.
How these factors play out can lead to several different outcomes. So let's play a game of alternative futures, and reverse engineer them to create a supporting scenario.
text continues after photos
by William S. Kowinski
Now that '>Star Trek: Enterprise has come to its premature end and the infrastructure that supported Star Trek on television for the past 18 years has disbanded, the future of the Star Trek "franchise" is in doubt.
As Leonard Nimoy reminded me last summer, laughing the entire time, Star Trek has been dead before. The original series was nearly cancelled after the first season, just about cancelled after the second season, and declared dead after the third. Then a decade later it was resurrected for one and only one movie '>("Star Trek: THE Motion Picture as Nimoy says). When the actors gathered for each of the next four original cast movies, they never officially were told there would be another one. Then came their sixth, and by then, there was no question that Star Trek was alive: after all, it had reproduced, and was considered very fertile.
Now several years after its first real big screen financial failure (although when the DVD and other income gets factored it, it's doubtful even '>Nemesis will have lost money) and its first series since the first to be cancelled before the ideal (for moneymaking) seven year lifespan, Star Trek is dead again.
There are so many factors involved in whether there will be new Star Trek stories on TV or at the movies that predicting a single future is unrealistic. Some of those factors are: judgments of new management at Paramount, creative leadership, the pros and cons of the established fan base, potential audience in the next several years beyond that fan base.
How these factors play out can lead to several different outcomes. So let's play a game of alternative futures, and reverse engineer them to create a supporting scenario.
text continues after photos
Future # 1: It's dead, Jim.
There will be no more Star Trek stories on television or in the movies. Paramount believes the Star Trek name is toxic. The public at large considers it a nostalgic throwback, and won't support new stories, while the fan base has become more trouble than it's worth: Aggressive and impossible to satisfy, able to destroy projects well in advance based on rumors, they are nitpicking scholars who examine every story for heresy according to the holy writ of canon, and issue their edicts through the Inquisition of the Internet.
Today’s audience isn't interested in a hopeful model for the future; they want violence as the realistic solution, neocon empire building and high tech warfare. Basically reactionary and lazy, they don't have the patience to follow intelligent stories without video-game violence.
They aren't interested in how humanity gets better and preserves its soul in the face of technology and the unknown, they want revenge fantasies and variations of evil, fear, envy, hatred, etc---all the wonderful qualities on display in the world today-- and simplistic superheroes to save the day.
They don't want "What if?" stories that provoke thinking and examination of today's human behavior, or serious science fiction; they want good v. evil (meaning us v. them) fantasies with vampires, evil spirits, vast digital armies of insect aliens and other characters that are more visual effects eye candy than substantive or meaningful beings.
It's been a great run, but even in the story of the boy who cried wolf, the wolf finally came. It's over.
Of course, Paramount will want to continue making money from the franchise, so it will keep and enforce its licensing of the Star Trek name. They could simply copy the most successful warfare-in-space show and call it Star Trek. However, a slight variation on this leads to scenario # 2:
There will be no more Star Trek stories on television or in the movies. Paramount believes the Star Trek name is toxic. The public at large considers it a nostalgic throwback, and won't support new stories, while the fan base has become more trouble than it's worth: Aggressive and impossible to satisfy, able to destroy projects well in advance based on rumors, they are nitpicking scholars who examine every story for heresy according to the holy writ of canon, and issue their edicts through the Inquisition of the Internet.
Today’s audience isn't interested in a hopeful model for the future; they want violence as the realistic solution, neocon empire building and high tech warfare. Basically reactionary and lazy, they don't have the patience to follow intelligent stories without video-game violence.
They aren't interested in how humanity gets better and preserves its soul in the face of technology and the unknown, they want revenge fantasies and variations of evil, fear, envy, hatred, etc---all the wonderful qualities on display in the world today-- and simplistic superheroes to save the day.
They don't want "What if?" stories that provoke thinking and examination of today's human behavior, or serious science fiction; they want good v. evil (meaning us v. them) fantasies with vampires, evil spirits, vast digital armies of insect aliens and other characters that are more visual effects eye candy than substantive or meaningful beings.
It's been a great run, but even in the story of the boy who cried wolf, the wolf finally came. It's over.
Of course, Paramount will want to continue making money from the franchise, so it will keep and enforce its licensing of the Star Trek name. They could simply copy the most successful warfare-in-space show and call it Star Trek. However, a slight variation on this leads to scenario # 2:
Future #2: Hand me the tricorder--maybe there's still a pulse.
Paramount has a lot on its plate and on its mind at the moment, so the prudent thing to do would be: nothing much. Just sit back and see how things unfold. Will the fan base wither? Will demand build? Will someone come forward who is interested in reviving Star Trek?
Somebody like... Steven Speilberg (currently awaiting the presumed blockbuster sci-fi movie, "War of the Worlds" he made for Paramount)? Or George Lucas who tried to acquire the Star Trek franchise before he made Star Wars?
Then of course Paramount would have to decide whether to make a deal that would probably mean they'd lose control of the franchise, or whether the fact that somebody like Speilberg or Lucas is interested in reviving it means they should take another look at it themselves.
Paramount could further test the waters, and maybe ascertain whether there is a future beyond conventional TV and feature films, by providing limited rights to outfits like New Voyages and Hidden Frontier to sell their movies on DVD. This would provide income to Paramount while giving them some idea of audience, and what might appeal to them. Sure, it's already embarrassing that some of these fan made movies are more popular than Enterprise was, which could be a problem if Paramount decides to make their own movies or TV shows again. But it could also be a low risk research tool, eventually a marketing tool, and a new way to bring in some cash for awhile longer.
Paramount has a lot on its plate and on its mind at the moment, so the prudent thing to do would be: nothing much. Just sit back and see how things unfold. Will the fan base wither? Will demand build? Will someone come forward who is interested in reviving Star Trek?
Somebody like... Steven Speilberg (currently awaiting the presumed blockbuster sci-fi movie, "War of the Worlds" he made for Paramount)? Or George Lucas who tried to acquire the Star Trek franchise before he made Star Wars?
Then of course Paramount would have to decide whether to make a deal that would probably mean they'd lose control of the franchise, or whether the fact that somebody like Speilberg or Lucas is interested in reviving it means they should take another look at it themselves.
Paramount could further test the waters, and maybe ascertain whether there is a future beyond conventional TV and feature films, by providing limited rights to outfits like New Voyages and Hidden Frontier to sell their movies on DVD. This would provide income to Paramount while giving them some idea of audience, and what might appeal to them. Sure, it's already embarrassing that some of these fan made movies are more popular than Enterprise was, which could be a problem if Paramount decides to make their own movies or TV shows again. But it could also be a low risk research tool, eventually a marketing tool, and a new way to bring in some cash for awhile longer.
Future #3 The Next Next Generation (Feature Film Division)
There's a certain conspiracy theory around that says Paramount wasn't really unhappy with the failure of Star Trek Nemesis, the most recent Star Trek feature. The feature film business is changing, and only big event movies justify big budgets. With the cost of digital effects falling, the biggest expense is getting to be the salaries of star actors. Star Trek films no longer are the big events with the major first weekend receipts; Trek films, like most films, make an increasing percentage of their money from DVD.
But Paramount couldn't simply abandon the Next Generation cast without alienating the fans that provide a reliable base of ticket sales. Nor could they have counted on the Star Trek infrastructure (Rick Berman, etc.) to go along with a completely new cast and concept. So they deliberately released the film when it would get clobbered by the real event blockbusters of today.
Whether or not that much is true, Patrick Stewart has indicated that his negotiations to appear in this film were particularly difficult, and they nearly broke down. And it is indisputably true that Paramount marketed the film as if it was going to be the last Next Generation movie ("a generation's final journey begins"), which evidently took the cast by surprise.
There has been regime change at Paramount since then, which makes this scenario more problematic, but Rick Berman has been talking about the story in development which doesn't feature known Trek characters. That of course translates into not featuring known Trek actors.
Less money for established stars means more for effects and other parts of the budget. It also means you don't have the big names that draw people to the theatres. Therefore you are going for the long-term DVD market, while hoping for a theatrical release surprise.
This strategy might mean that Paramount will have to cater to the fan base. If so, then there are a couple of other elements likely to be part of this alternative. First, the timing has to be such that enough time elapses to whet fan appetite, but not too much that the fan base dies off.
Second, that there is some continuity. If the Age of Berman is over (see the next alternative) then somebody else identified with Star Trek might very well be involved. The likeliest candidates are from the Next Generation: Jonathan Frakes and/or Levar Burton. Frakes directed the most successful Next Generation film, he's been a good soldier for Trek (even appearing in Enterprise) and he's on good terms with the rest of the Next Generation cast and crew, as well as with at least some of the original series folks, and subsequent ones.
Burton has directed episodes of every Trek series except the first, is very articulate and clear on what Star Trek is about, and has established relationships with cast members and others from the subsequent series to TNG, as well as the kind of ties and experience Frakes has. Both are liked and respected by fans. Both were hired by Gene Roddenberry---a very important qualification for traditional Trek fans, and even for executives who want to recapture the magic of the 1970s through the early 1990s.
There's a certain conspiracy theory around that says Paramount wasn't really unhappy with the failure of Star Trek Nemesis, the most recent Star Trek feature. The feature film business is changing, and only big event movies justify big budgets. With the cost of digital effects falling, the biggest expense is getting to be the salaries of star actors. Star Trek films no longer are the big events with the major first weekend receipts; Trek films, like most films, make an increasing percentage of their money from DVD.
But Paramount couldn't simply abandon the Next Generation cast without alienating the fans that provide a reliable base of ticket sales. Nor could they have counted on the Star Trek infrastructure (Rick Berman, etc.) to go along with a completely new cast and concept. So they deliberately released the film when it would get clobbered by the real event blockbusters of today.
Whether or not that much is true, Patrick Stewart has indicated that his negotiations to appear in this film were particularly difficult, and they nearly broke down. And it is indisputably true that Paramount marketed the film as if it was going to be the last Next Generation movie ("a generation's final journey begins"), which evidently took the cast by surprise.
There has been regime change at Paramount since then, which makes this scenario more problematic, but Rick Berman has been talking about the story in development which doesn't feature known Trek characters. That of course translates into not featuring known Trek actors.
Less money for established stars means more for effects and other parts of the budget. It also means you don't have the big names that draw people to the theatres. Therefore you are going for the long-term DVD market, while hoping for a theatrical release surprise.
This strategy might mean that Paramount will have to cater to the fan base. If so, then there are a couple of other elements likely to be part of this alternative. First, the timing has to be such that enough time elapses to whet fan appetite, but not too much that the fan base dies off.
Second, that there is some continuity. If the Age of Berman is over (see the next alternative) then somebody else identified with Star Trek might very well be involved. The likeliest candidates are from the Next Generation: Jonathan Frakes and/or Levar Burton. Frakes directed the most successful Next Generation film, he's been a good soldier for Trek (even appearing in Enterprise) and he's on good terms with the rest of the Next Generation cast and crew, as well as with at least some of the original series folks, and subsequent ones.
Burton has directed episodes of every Trek series except the first, is very articulate and clear on what Star Trek is about, and has established relationships with cast members and others from the subsequent series to TNG, as well as the kind of ties and experience Frakes has. Both are liked and respected by fans. Both were hired by Gene Roddenberry---a very important qualification for traditional Trek fans, and even for executives who want to recapture the magic of the 1970s through the early 1990s.
Future Scenario #4 The Age of (Rick) Berman is Over
This is less a stand-alone scenario than a likely prelude to whatever Paramount decides to do.
There have been only two chief executives in Star Trek's history: Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman. Rick Berman ran Star Trek during its most profitable times and its slow decline. He presided over more TV episodes and movies than Roddenberry did, and even wrote more Star Trek stories.
Many people who worked with and for Rick Berman praise him for his patience, his loyalty, generosity and judgment. But Berman was not an originator. He said consistently that his job was to enact Gene Roddenberry's vision. Though each of the series he oversaw after GR (DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) diverged more and more from GR's universe, and one can argue that Enterprise was his main assertion of independence (he wrote more scripts and stories for it, made certain changes in the template and didn't have Star Trek in its title at first), he still maintained he was continuing GR's concept, within the continuous Star Trek universe.
It's fascinating to contrast the two chiefs of Trek. GR was and remains a controversial figure, the subject of several book-length '>biographies, including one by a careful scholar who nevertheless was a personal friend and authorized biographer, and another by someone who sought out and included every nasty comment made by people with an ax to grind he could find.
There are no biographies of Rick Berman, and not even a major magazine profile. There have been many books written about Star Trek during Roddenberry's rule by other participants, including the entire original cast (except for DeForest Kelley), and few if any by participants during Berman's rule.
In short, we have a lot of information about GR (a lot of it contradictory) and his role in developing and running Star Trek, as well as about his ideas, friends, lovers, family, favorite recreations, childhood etc. In contrast we have almost no information on any of this about Rick Berman.
Maybe it's none of our business, but it does suggest a crucial difference that may in fact be obvious. GR orchestrated the creation of Star Trek, out of his own head and from the contributions of others he got involved and consulted. Rick Berman orchestrated the continuation of Star Trek.
This was not an uncreative enterprise. New takes on the Trek universe, new stories within it, and adapting to new business relationships and to changes in technology and so on, all required creativity. But it may well be that Trek was not creatively renewed at the level of ideas that were important to its creation.
For example, GR and his initial team consulted regularly with scientists and technicians at NASA, JPL and elsewhere. GR sought advice and ideas from major science fiction writers he befriended---Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke in particular. Ted Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison and other science fiction writers contributed key stories and scripts. (Even in the Berman regime, during TNG and later, new ideas came over the transom thanks to an open submissions policy that was lacking during Enterprise.)
However it worked, there seemed to be more contact with cutting edge ideas---in psychology and metaphysics as well as physics---in the Roddenberry era, plus the last 3 years of TNG. Maybe there just weren't that many new ideas around from the 90s to now, but I don't think so. I'd venture to suggest that there was even gradual retrenchment, with more interest in recapitulating the past but throwing it forward into the future.
The argument can be made that the science fiction basis withered under Berman, as well as the strong point of view on political and social matters that motivated GR and others early on. GR was invited to speak to assemblies of humanists, religious organizations, space technologists, futurists, Jungians and other groups at the frontier of various areas of knowledge and speculation. (And of course, he spoke often at Star Trek and science fiction conventions.) If Berman ever did this, the record is hard to find. We don't know the extent of his interest in current ideas in these fields, but it's likely that being involved in current knowledge, speculation and ideas is necessary to ongoing renewal of Star Trek.
Maybe it's a generational thing as well. GR's strong views on conflict and peace were tested in real war; he had actually flown aircraft, and been a cop on the street. Other producers and writers for the original series had real world backgrounds. Members of the original cast had experienced real prejudice (although members of subsequent casts likely did as well), and several were political activists who put their beliefs into practice. The producers and writers of the later series seem to have been in television their whole careers.
As Enterprise ended, Rick Berman made on the record statements, and applying a journalist's nose to certain newspaper articles, perhaps spoke off the record, about how limited his control over Star Trek really was. He spoke about "audience fatigue" as a major factor, but it's possible that fatigue was a more general problem.
At the moment, Rick Berman is under contract to Paramount but his only known assignment is his role in developing the story and script for the projected next Trek feature. He has refused to say what his future with Trek might be, suggesting that he will revisit that topic in six months or so. The various alternative futures of Trek will of course be influenced by whether Rick Berman continues as the chief of Trek. But with a new Paramount creative head from outside the company, Gail Berman (no relation), and the recent downswing in Trek's fortunes, it seems more likely than not that the Age of Rick Berman at Star Trek is over.
If this is so, it could pave the way for a new chief of the same Star Trek universe. Since the decision to maintain the Trek universe-the so-called canon---would indicate that Paramount wants to hold onto the fan base, it could be someone the fans trust, such as the aforementioned Jonathan Frakes and/or Levar Burton. Other figures popular in Trekdom include Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner. Some Trek fans would favor producer Manny Coto, but the last of Enterprise has made him a more controversial choice. Other popular former insiders, like producer Ronald Moore, are occupied elsewhere with ongoing science fiction shows and franchises.
But of course the end of the Age of Berman, if that happens, would also pave the way to something completely different.
This is less a stand-alone scenario than a likely prelude to whatever Paramount decides to do.
There have been only two chief executives in Star Trek's history: Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman. Rick Berman ran Star Trek during its most profitable times and its slow decline. He presided over more TV episodes and movies than Roddenberry did, and even wrote more Star Trek stories.
Many people who worked with and for Rick Berman praise him for his patience, his loyalty, generosity and judgment. But Berman was not an originator. He said consistently that his job was to enact Gene Roddenberry's vision. Though each of the series he oversaw after GR (DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) diverged more and more from GR's universe, and one can argue that Enterprise was his main assertion of independence (he wrote more scripts and stories for it, made certain changes in the template and didn't have Star Trek in its title at first), he still maintained he was continuing GR's concept, within the continuous Star Trek universe.
It's fascinating to contrast the two chiefs of Trek. GR was and remains a controversial figure, the subject of several book-length '>biographies, including one by a careful scholar who nevertheless was a personal friend and authorized biographer, and another by someone who sought out and included every nasty comment made by people with an ax to grind he could find.
There are no biographies of Rick Berman, and not even a major magazine profile. There have been many books written about Star Trek during Roddenberry's rule by other participants, including the entire original cast (except for DeForest Kelley), and few if any by participants during Berman's rule.
In short, we have a lot of information about GR (a lot of it contradictory) and his role in developing and running Star Trek, as well as about his ideas, friends, lovers, family, favorite recreations, childhood etc. In contrast we have almost no information on any of this about Rick Berman.
Maybe it's none of our business, but it does suggest a crucial difference that may in fact be obvious. GR orchestrated the creation of Star Trek, out of his own head and from the contributions of others he got involved and consulted. Rick Berman orchestrated the continuation of Star Trek.
This was not an uncreative enterprise. New takes on the Trek universe, new stories within it, and adapting to new business relationships and to changes in technology and so on, all required creativity. But it may well be that Trek was not creatively renewed at the level of ideas that were important to its creation.
For example, GR and his initial team consulted regularly with scientists and technicians at NASA, JPL and elsewhere. GR sought advice and ideas from major science fiction writers he befriended---Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke in particular. Ted Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison and other science fiction writers contributed key stories and scripts. (Even in the Berman regime, during TNG and later, new ideas came over the transom thanks to an open submissions policy that was lacking during Enterprise.)
However it worked, there seemed to be more contact with cutting edge ideas---in psychology and metaphysics as well as physics---in the Roddenberry era, plus the last 3 years of TNG. Maybe there just weren't that many new ideas around from the 90s to now, but I don't think so. I'd venture to suggest that there was even gradual retrenchment, with more interest in recapitulating the past but throwing it forward into the future.
The argument can be made that the science fiction basis withered under Berman, as well as the strong point of view on political and social matters that motivated GR and others early on. GR was invited to speak to assemblies of humanists, religious organizations, space technologists, futurists, Jungians and other groups at the frontier of various areas of knowledge and speculation. (And of course, he spoke often at Star Trek and science fiction conventions.) If Berman ever did this, the record is hard to find. We don't know the extent of his interest in current ideas in these fields, but it's likely that being involved in current knowledge, speculation and ideas is necessary to ongoing renewal of Star Trek.
Maybe it's a generational thing as well. GR's strong views on conflict and peace were tested in real war; he had actually flown aircraft, and been a cop on the street. Other producers and writers for the original series had real world backgrounds. Members of the original cast had experienced real prejudice (although members of subsequent casts likely did as well), and several were political activists who put their beliefs into practice. The producers and writers of the later series seem to have been in television their whole careers.
As Enterprise ended, Rick Berman made on the record statements, and applying a journalist's nose to certain newspaper articles, perhaps spoke off the record, about how limited his control over Star Trek really was. He spoke about "audience fatigue" as a major factor, but it's possible that fatigue was a more general problem.
At the moment, Rick Berman is under contract to Paramount but his only known assignment is his role in developing the story and script for the projected next Trek feature. He has refused to say what his future with Trek might be, suggesting that he will revisit that topic in six months or so. The various alternative futures of Trek will of course be influenced by whether Rick Berman continues as the chief of Trek. But with a new Paramount creative head from outside the company, Gail Berman (no relation), and the recent downswing in Trek's fortunes, it seems more likely than not that the Age of Rick Berman at Star Trek is over.
If this is so, it could pave the way for a new chief of the same Star Trek universe. Since the decision to maintain the Trek universe-the so-called canon---would indicate that Paramount wants to hold onto the fan base, it could be someone the fans trust, such as the aforementioned Jonathan Frakes and/or Levar Burton. Other figures popular in Trekdom include Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner. Some Trek fans would favor producer Manny Coto, but the last of Enterprise has made him a more controversial choice. Other popular former insiders, like producer Ronald Moore, are occupied elsewhere with ongoing science fiction shows and franchises.
But of course the end of the Age of Berman, if that happens, would also pave the way to something completely different.
Future Scenario #5 Re-invention
Paramount might decide that Star Trek still has potential---that is, it can still inspire creative storytelling, and importantly to them, it can still make major money. But it might decide---or it might get an offer it can't refuse from the likes of Lucas or Speilberg with this demand---that the Star Trek canon universe is a dead issue, and can safely be abandoned.
Then the question becomes: will it be Star Trek in anything but name? And will the name be enough?
Some feel that a complete re-invention is possible, although only if the core integrity of Star Trek's ideals are preserved. Former Trek scribe and now science fiction novelist '>Nick Sagan suggested this to me, in an email response to questions I sent him while I was reporting last summer's New York Times story. Here's the operative quote:
"You don't have to tell stories about or even tip the hat to previous Trek characters. All you need is Gene Roddenberry's sense of hope and wonder. At its core, Star Trek is about the people of Earth optimistically uniting in purpose, sending explorers into the universe. What could be out there? That's the core of Gene's vision, and as long as you don't lose that, you can find a new voice, a new point of view about the future, and reimagine the show any of a thousand different ways."
Nick prefaced this by saying that such a reinvention would follow a period of silence, when there was no new Trek around, to give a new concept "breathing room."
It would also depend on the fan base quieting down, if not withering away. Right now Trek fandom is a chaotic concept. Internet fans seem quite different from convention-going fans, who in turn are different from casual fans who simply like watching Star Trek. Within at least the Internet activists are very different visions of what Trek is or should be.
Some of it is political and ideological, with some fans lambasting or simply dismissing GR's vision as the ravings of a naïve and deluded arcane liberal. There is a neocon and Christian fundamentalist fan presence on the net that support political and cultural agendas that GR and most of the Trek writers and actors would not---they'd probably find a lot of it horrifying. And of course, there are fans with unitary loyalty to one series, and disdain for all others, as well as those who simply like some series and movies better, and just don't care to see the others. And there is a vocal group, probably a minority though no one knows how large or small, that defends total Trek canon, including some who express contempt for some of it.
But what would re-invention look like? On the big screen, it could be a new cast of unknowns who either portray new characters or established Trek characters like Captain Kirk, but in both cases with selective or complete disregard for canon facts and stories. They would reinvent the Trek universe, and break continuity with the existing stories. Or it could be a more modest reinvention on that level, like the movies made about comic book heroes like Spiderman and Batman, with reference to certain key characters, characteristics and events, but disregard for others.
On the big screen, it could also be a total or partial reinvention with established movie stars, who wouldn't participate unless they could make the characters their own. It might be a little more like the "Lost in Space" movie versus the TV show. Would the draw of major stars compensate for the ire of old fans? Being able to answering that question "and bring in a whole new and larger audience" would be the calculation Paramount would have to make.
On TV, reinvention could be a trickier project. Even with the vaunted "audience fatigue," the Enterprise premiere attracted some 20 million viewers. Could a show that calls itself Star Trek but which fans believe isn't Star Trek overcome that resistance, and more importantly, could it hold onto the viewers made curious, if not absolutely attracted, by the Trek name?
Enterprise failed despite having an established TV sci-fi star as its lead, so casting alone won't guarantee success. Manny Coto suggested that Trek will be back on TV when a "show runner" for another hot TV series expresses interest in doing it. Maybe. But television professionalism isn't everything, as Enterprise suggests.
My instinct is that to revive and reinvent Trek, the next Trek chief will need to go back to the same process followed by GR and his team: look at the science and speculation, at the cutting edge stuff, and design a future that works, that is exciting and attractive, and has lots of room for stories.
This process is necessary not only to reimagine Trek altogether, but to take the Trek universe to where it hasn't gone before-into the 25th century perhaps, or even deeper into its earlier days.
There are other alternative scenarios, some suggested here before, like animated Trek. For now it’s all speculation. Still, this fallow period is an opportunity to hone in on what is most valuable about Star Trek, as a guide to its future.
Paramount might decide that Star Trek still has potential---that is, it can still inspire creative storytelling, and importantly to them, it can still make major money. But it might decide---or it might get an offer it can't refuse from the likes of Lucas or Speilberg with this demand---that the Star Trek canon universe is a dead issue, and can safely be abandoned.
Then the question becomes: will it be Star Trek in anything but name? And will the name be enough?
Some feel that a complete re-invention is possible, although only if the core integrity of Star Trek's ideals are preserved. Former Trek scribe and now science fiction novelist '>Nick Sagan suggested this to me, in an email response to questions I sent him while I was reporting last summer's New York Times story. Here's the operative quote:
"You don't have to tell stories about or even tip the hat to previous Trek characters. All you need is Gene Roddenberry's sense of hope and wonder. At its core, Star Trek is about the people of Earth optimistically uniting in purpose, sending explorers into the universe. What could be out there? That's the core of Gene's vision, and as long as you don't lose that, you can find a new voice, a new point of view about the future, and reimagine the show any of a thousand different ways."
Nick prefaced this by saying that such a reinvention would follow a period of silence, when there was no new Trek around, to give a new concept "breathing room."
It would also depend on the fan base quieting down, if not withering away. Right now Trek fandom is a chaotic concept. Internet fans seem quite different from convention-going fans, who in turn are different from casual fans who simply like watching Star Trek. Within at least the Internet activists are very different visions of what Trek is or should be.
Some of it is political and ideological, with some fans lambasting or simply dismissing GR's vision as the ravings of a naïve and deluded arcane liberal. There is a neocon and Christian fundamentalist fan presence on the net that support political and cultural agendas that GR and most of the Trek writers and actors would not---they'd probably find a lot of it horrifying. And of course, there are fans with unitary loyalty to one series, and disdain for all others, as well as those who simply like some series and movies better, and just don't care to see the others. And there is a vocal group, probably a minority though no one knows how large or small, that defends total Trek canon, including some who express contempt for some of it.
But what would re-invention look like? On the big screen, it could be a new cast of unknowns who either portray new characters or established Trek characters like Captain Kirk, but in both cases with selective or complete disregard for canon facts and stories. They would reinvent the Trek universe, and break continuity with the existing stories. Or it could be a more modest reinvention on that level, like the movies made about comic book heroes like Spiderman and Batman, with reference to certain key characters, characteristics and events, but disregard for others.
On the big screen, it could also be a total or partial reinvention with established movie stars, who wouldn't participate unless they could make the characters their own. It might be a little more like the "Lost in Space" movie versus the TV show. Would the draw of major stars compensate for the ire of old fans? Being able to answering that question "and bring in a whole new and larger audience" would be the calculation Paramount would have to make.
On TV, reinvention could be a trickier project. Even with the vaunted "audience fatigue," the Enterprise premiere attracted some 20 million viewers. Could a show that calls itself Star Trek but which fans believe isn't Star Trek overcome that resistance, and more importantly, could it hold onto the viewers made curious, if not absolutely attracted, by the Trek name?
Enterprise failed despite having an established TV sci-fi star as its lead, so casting alone won't guarantee success. Manny Coto suggested that Trek will be back on TV when a "show runner" for another hot TV series expresses interest in doing it. Maybe. But television professionalism isn't everything, as Enterprise suggests.
My instinct is that to revive and reinvent Trek, the next Trek chief will need to go back to the same process followed by GR and his team: look at the science and speculation, at the cutting edge stuff, and design a future that works, that is exciting and attractive, and has lots of room for stories.
This process is necessary not only to reimagine Trek altogether, but to take the Trek universe to where it hasn't gone before-into the 25th century perhaps, or even deeper into its earlier days.
There are other alternative scenarios, some suggested here before, like animated Trek. For now it’s all speculation. Still, this fallow period is an opportunity to hone in on what is most valuable about Star Trek, as a guide to its future.
GR did three things with Star Trek. First, he made an entertaining adventure series set in the new frontier of space: Wagon Train to the Stars. In doing so, he used some established sci-fi elements of what that future would be like, but he also added elements that hadn't been seen before.
Second, he used the Trek universe for allegories, metaphors, perspective and comment on today---not just political events but the way humans are now. He made Gulliver's Travels in Space.
Third, he realized that the opportunity to create a universe meant the opportunity to create the vision of a better one---a future people could admire, aspire to, be inspired by, and especially want to be part of, if only for an hour a week. If he made a universe we'd like to live in, people would come to it. The precedents for this would be the centuries of literary utopias, including those created by sci-fi authors. Those utopias weren't meant to be perfect societies, but they were acts of creative imagination that inspired hope for better possibilities in the future. Still, given the misunderstanding the term has today, let's just say that in this third instance, GR made...Star Trek.
My own feeling is that Star Trek still has the same basic mission, and that there is an audience for it. It would embody all three of the functions I've just described. It would offer stories in an imaginative universe that offers hope and direction for our future by partly fulfilling our current hopes, and testing them and others by means of story.
It would return the creative tension between intellectual and moral concerns and ideas, and the necessities of the form (TV series, movie) and business. It would deal with character, but also return to science fiction concepts. It would have action, but it would express adventure in ways that provide the hope that in the future, people will derive pleasure and meaning from doing good and creating as well as destroying, and that they will find challenge in intellectual and spiritual realms as well as the physical. It would have the humanity that GR professed, and it would deal with cosmic questions as well as what the people of the future would be doing in the cosmos, and how they might do it.
It would refrain from micro-managing its imagery to appeal to young men or young women or any particular "demographic," but would return to what made Star Trek successful with children, teenagers, young adults, parents and now grandparents: thought-provoking and surprising stories, told intelligently and well, classical at its core and built to last, with a minimum of graphic violence and a maximum of wonder.
When Star Trek started, nobody believed there was an audience for this kind of saga. Maybe nobody believes it now. But in the nearly forty years between, there was.
Second, he used the Trek universe for allegories, metaphors, perspective and comment on today---not just political events but the way humans are now. He made Gulliver's Travels in Space.
Third, he realized that the opportunity to create a universe meant the opportunity to create the vision of a better one---a future people could admire, aspire to, be inspired by, and especially want to be part of, if only for an hour a week. If he made a universe we'd like to live in, people would come to it. The precedents for this would be the centuries of literary utopias, including those created by sci-fi authors. Those utopias weren't meant to be perfect societies, but they were acts of creative imagination that inspired hope for better possibilities in the future. Still, given the misunderstanding the term has today, let's just say that in this third instance, GR made...Star Trek.
My own feeling is that Star Trek still has the same basic mission, and that there is an audience for it. It would embody all three of the functions I've just described. It would offer stories in an imaginative universe that offers hope and direction for our future by partly fulfilling our current hopes, and testing them and others by means of story.
It would return the creative tension between intellectual and moral concerns and ideas, and the necessities of the form (TV series, movie) and business. It would deal with character, but also return to science fiction concepts. It would have action, but it would express adventure in ways that provide the hope that in the future, people will derive pleasure and meaning from doing good and creating as well as destroying, and that they will find challenge in intellectual and spiritual realms as well as the physical. It would have the humanity that GR professed, and it would deal with cosmic questions as well as what the people of the future would be doing in the cosmos, and how they might do it.
It would refrain from micro-managing its imagery to appeal to young men or young women or any particular "demographic," but would return to what made Star Trek successful with children, teenagers, young adults, parents and now grandparents: thought-provoking and surprising stories, told intelligently and well, classical at its core and built to last, with a minimum of graphic violence and a maximum of wonder.
When Star Trek started, nobody believed there was an audience for this kind of saga. Maybe nobody believes it now. But in the nearly forty years between, there was.
Coming Soon
What were things really like when Star Trek started in 1966? And several posts relating to the new War of the Worlds movie, including origins of the novel, the connections between H.G. Wells and Gene Roddenberry, and an essay on the new film.
Generally there are new posts once a week, appearing usually between Sunday and Wednesday.
What were things really like when Star Trek started in 1966? And several posts relating to the new War of the Worlds movie, including origins of the novel, the connections between H.G. Wells and Gene Roddenberry, and an essay on the new film.
Generally there are new posts once a week, appearing usually between Sunday and Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)