The Unauthorized Trekkers’ Guide to the Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. James Hise van

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ be appreciated. H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, E. E. “Doc” Smith, Edgar Allan Poe, Clark Ashton Smith, Rod Serling, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and many others, including H. G. Wells and Jules Verne, left books behind for fans to enjoy. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, yet Sherlock Holmes is appreciated by more people today than ever before. Every year, it seems, someone is inspired to take pen in hand and create an “untold” tale of London’s famous sleuth.

      “New” is not an easy word. Harlan Ellison is fond of pointing out that, “Any book you have not read is a new book.”

      I raised these points in a reply when the remarks that opened this article first appeared. I had hoped for a reply befitting the stature of the magazine. Instead I witnessed the death of the publication. It ended in 1978 while the “corpse” of Star Trek looks amazingly healthy these days.

      SURVIVAL TRAITS

      Why did Star Trek endure? Its whole proved to be greater than the sum of its parts. A special spirit struck a responsive chord in many people. It delivered something people searched for and wouldn’t find again until Star Wars appeared in 1977, namely, optimism. They both offered a future in the stars, no matter what squalor lay at our feet.

      When Star Trek premiered in 1966, the dream of reaching beyond the mortal confines of our world still seemed a dream. America was plunged deep into the quagmire of Southeast Asia. The future offered little when friends and relatives came home in bodybags.

      Then Star Trek brought new hope. It proclaimed that not only would there be a future, but the future worked. The starship Enterprise astonished audiences with its futuristic design, giving us what appeared to be a window into a new, better world.

      INSIDE THE ENTERPRISE

      Then the noble captain of the ship, Captain Kirk, appeared; fearless, yet touched by every death. McCoy, the ship’s doctor and the captain’s close friend, acted as his devil’s advocate, offering the voice of traditional humanity. At the perimeter stood Spock, cool and austere, always logical. Spock was the enigma. He was second-in-command and possessor of an alien heritage.

      The stories offered reality. People thought and bled; they made mistakes and expressed personal beliefs. Many episodes, including “The Naked Time,” forced deeply rooted doubts of the day to the surface. No other cast of science fiction characters had ever tried this before.

      Space: 1999 arrived in 1975. Audiences waited for something good. It didn’t have to be Star Trek; it just had to be enjoyable. The dreadful series triggered a violent backlash. One critic aptly dubbed it Space: 1949. It was so relentlessly awful that audiences felt betrayed.

      Much the same expectations and resentment would also accompany the arrival of Battlestar Galactica.

      Star Trek characters, on the other hand, took on lives of their own. Each script added bits of characterization. Viewers felt they recognized the humanity of the characters on screen.

      ALWAYS ETHICALLY CORRECT

      Captain Kirk and his crew were idealizations. When push comes to shove, they do the right thing: Kirk, Spock, and McCoy don’t possess normal human foibles. They might get angry, but then they meekly apologize. They always make the right ethical choice.

      In Harlan Ellison’s “The City on the Edge of Forever,” Harlan wanted Kirk to try to save Edith despite knowing the disastrous consequences of her continued life. Kirk would have failed but he would have tried. This was Harlan’s version for which he won the Writer’s Guild Award. Gene Roddenberry thought Kirk would do the right thing when the time came, no matter how painful. Ellison insisted that bringing Edith to the future would bring the same result as letting her be run down in the street. Roddenberry (with an assist from Gene L. Coon) rewrote Ellison’s screenplay. Captain Kirk deliberately prevented McCoy from saving Edith. Kirk experienced great anguish, but he did the right thing.

      Although the characters in Star Trek are enduring, and certainly more believable than those on Lost in Space, Space: 1999, and others, they are still idealizations. Trek characters look like human beings only by comparison with other TV series from that period. They are noble and unblemished, but they agonize over decisions such as in the above example from “The City On the Edge of Forever.”

      EARLY EVALUATIONS

      After the cancellation of Star Trek in 1969, a revival wasn’t dreamed. Fans were grateful for any mention of their favorite show, however tepid. One example is the brief dismissal given it by John Baxter in his 1970 book Science Fiction in the Cinema, where he devotes only three paragraphs to the series.

      Baxter praises “The Menagerie” but drop-kicks stock sets with formula situations, discussing “Patterns of Force” (Nazi Germany) and “A Piece of the Action” (Chicago in the thirties) while ignoring such key episodes as “City on the Edge of Forever,” “This Side of Paradise,” “Mirror, Mirror” and others far more representative of Star Trek. He singled out “Charlie X” for praise, but never mentioned the obvious inspiration of Stranger in a Strange Land.

      Baxter never mentions the series’ characters, even though fifteen years before Hill Street Blues, and half a decade before M*A*S*H, Star Trek presented an ensemble cast representing wide interests and appeals.

      A SAFE PORT

      Although both the original Star Trek and its offspring, Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine, have been accused by some critics of science fiction of avoiding current social issues, the entire Star Trek family continues to express hope for the future, hope that mankind’s possibilities are endless. And this, if nothing else, leads to a safe port in a troubled modern world.

PART

       2

       THE NEXT GENERATION

CHAPTER

       1

       ENTER THE NEXT GENERATION

      “We grew beyond the original show. We love the original and those actors, but we see the world differently now and our show reflects that.”

      —Gene Roddenberry USA Today November 1, 1990

      In 1987 something controversial was done. Star Trek was brought back to weekly television without any of the familiar faces who had graced the name since 1966. Gene Roddenberry was still at the helm, and the universe portrayed was not so different from what we had first been introduced to years before.

      When Paramount announced that Gene Roddenberry was creating the first Star Trek spin-off series, and that it would be set seventy-five years beyond the Trek universe we were all familiar with, it was inevitable that this meant changes. How sweeping would those changes be? Clearly the technology would be updated, just as it had been for the motion pictures. Would the philosophy behind the show be retooled СКАЧАТЬ