The Final Frontier?
AP Article on Final "Enterprise" Episode:
"Star Trek: Enterprise" is about to go
where it has never gone before: off the air, taking the "Star
Trek" franchise with it.
After the two-hour finale airs (8 p.m. EDT Friday on UPN) this
will be the first time in 18 years that no first-run "Trek"
series is on TV.
"Enterprise" lasted four seasons. It was the first "Trek"
spinoff to last fewer than seven seasons. Plummeting ratings did
what no Klingon battlecruiser or Borg collective could accomplish.
And this time, network honchos didn't bow to Trekker pressure to
renew the series, as they did in the face of a write-in campaign
that gave the original "Star Trek" a third year on the tube
(1966-69).
In fact, many longtime Trekkers stopped watching long ago. There
were gripes going back at least as far as the fourth incarnation,
"Star Trek: Voyager" (1995-2001), about lame or retreaded plots,
goofy aliens and the weak leadership of "Voyager's" Kathryn
Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) and "Enterprise's" Jonathan Archer (Scott
Bakula).
Sadly lacking were the rules-be-damned machismo of James
Tiberius Kirk (William Shatner) or the class and thoughtful
maturity of Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart).
The original "Trek" was not above a little T&A to jazz up
ratings. (Who can forget Yeoman Rand's miniskirt or the
green-skinned Orion dancers?) But "Voyager" may have upped the
silliness ante with a Borg who wore skin-tight catsuits and high
heels, while "Enterprise" had a curvaceous Vulcan officer
stripping every other episode.
No villain like the unstoppable Borg cropped up for a decade,
either.
Supporters say "Enterprise" had vastly improved in its final
season and blame other reasons for the ratings drop: weekend reruns
that drew an audience but weren't counted in the Nielsens; ditto
for those who taped or TiVo'd the program. And shifting
"Enterprise" to a Friday time slot didn't help.
Producer Rick Berman has cited the problem of "franchise
fatigue" after decades of "Star Trek" spinoffs.
Perhaps, some Trekkers argue, it was time to take a rest. After
all, it was 18 years between the original "Trek" and "The Next
Generation," which went on to have a vast following.
In the meantime, there are the reruns, the DVD packages, the
video games, the hordes of fans in chat rooms and conventions and
the contributions to popular culture that range from Klingon
language academies to the phrase "Beam me up, Scotty!"
Things have changed a lot over the years, both within and
without the "Trek" universe, as scholars drew real-world
comparisons to the shows.
The original series had a Cold War between the Federation and
the Russians, er, Klingons and a cheerfully naive approach to
solving racial and political conflicts.
"Next Generation" (1987-94) had a post-Soviet view in which
the Klingons were allies, and a politically correct view that the
values of other cultures, no matter how weird or repugnant,
deserved respect.
Both also shared a sunny idealism that humans had overcome their
own conflicts, lived in peace, and were on voyages of discovery and
knowledge for the sheer joy of it.
The optimistic view of a united future humanity that the
original "Trek" offered began to crumble in earnest with "Star
Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993-1999). The earnest morality of the
first two series gave way to gray areas in which the good guys
dirtied their hands with assassinations and other foul deeds in
fighting a war for survival.
Moral relativism had crept into the sparkling "Trek" universe.
Some viewers were dismayed; others enthralled.
By "Enterprise," actually a prequel set more than a century
before the original series, the plots involved murky machinations
and feuds spreading across the galaxy and even through time.
Innocence was replaced by a somewhat gloomy view. Even the vaunted
Vulcans were portrayed as pompous and dissembling.
But in the meantime, "Trek" no longer had the TV universe to
itself. "Bablyon 5" (1994-1998) created a world arguably as rich
and complex as the Federation's. Nowadays, science fiction fans can
choose from a host of syndicated and cable shows, including "Gene
Roddenberry's Andromeda" (named for "Star Trek's" late creator
and produced by his widow) and the new "Battlestar Galactica."
Maybe there's just too much competition these days, and the
audience is too fragmented.
Maybe even Capt. Kirk couldn't save the franchise.
Maybe, as with people, so with "Trek": the one enemy that
always wins is Time.
Or perhaps, someday in the distant future, "Star Trek" will
rise again. Fans can have only one response to that hope:
Make it so.
"Star Trek: Enterprise" is about to go
where it has never gone before: off the air, taking the "Star
Trek" franchise with it.
After the two-hour finale airs (8 p.m. EDT Friday on UPN) this
will be the first time in 18 years that no first-run "Trek"
series is on TV.
"Enterprise" lasted four seasons. It was the first "Trek"
spinoff to last fewer than seven seasons. Plummeting ratings did
what no Klingon battlecruiser or Borg collective could accomplish.
And this time, network honchos didn't bow to Trekker pressure to
renew the series, as they did in the face of a write-in campaign
that gave the original "Star Trek" a third year on the tube
(1966-69).
In fact, many longtime Trekkers stopped watching long ago. There
were gripes going back at least as far as the fourth incarnation,
"Star Trek: Voyager" (1995-2001), about lame or retreaded plots,
goofy aliens and the weak leadership of "Voyager's" Kathryn
Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) and "Enterprise's" Jonathan Archer (Scott
Bakula).
Sadly lacking were the rules-be-damned machismo of James
Tiberius Kirk (William Shatner) or the class and thoughtful
maturity of Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart).
The original "Trek" was not above a little T&A to jazz up
ratings. (Who can forget Yeoman Rand's miniskirt or the
green-skinned Orion dancers?) But "Voyager" may have upped the
silliness ante with a Borg who wore skin-tight catsuits and high
heels, while "Enterprise" had a curvaceous Vulcan officer
stripping every other episode.
No villain like the unstoppable Borg cropped up for a decade,
either.
Supporters say "Enterprise" had vastly improved in its final
season and blame other reasons for the ratings drop: weekend reruns
that drew an audience but weren't counted in the Nielsens; ditto
for those who taped or TiVo'd the program. And shifting
"Enterprise" to a Friday time slot didn't help.
Producer Rick Berman has cited the problem of "franchise
fatigue" after decades of "Star Trek" spinoffs.
Perhaps, some Trekkers argue, it was time to take a rest. After
all, it was 18 years between the original "Trek" and "The Next
Generation," which went on to have a vast following.
In the meantime, there are the reruns, the DVD packages, the
video games, the hordes of fans in chat rooms and conventions and
the contributions to popular culture that range from Klingon
language academies to the phrase "Beam me up, Scotty!"
Things have changed a lot over the years, both within and
without the "Trek" universe, as scholars drew real-world
comparisons to the shows.
The original series had a Cold War between the Federation and
the Russians, er, Klingons and a cheerfully naive approach to
solving racial and political conflicts.
"Next Generation" (1987-94) had a post-Soviet view in which
the Klingons were allies, and a politically correct view that the
values of other cultures, no matter how weird or repugnant,
deserved respect.
Both also shared a sunny idealism that humans had overcome their
own conflicts, lived in peace, and were on voyages of discovery and
knowledge for the sheer joy of it.
The optimistic view of a united future humanity that the
original "Trek" offered began to crumble in earnest with "Star
Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993-1999). The earnest morality of the
first two series gave way to gray areas in which the good guys
dirtied their hands with assassinations and other foul deeds in
fighting a war for survival.
Moral relativism had crept into the sparkling "Trek" universe.
Some viewers were dismayed; others enthralled.
By "Enterprise," actually a prequel set more than a century
before the original series, the plots involved murky machinations
and feuds spreading across the galaxy and even through time.
Innocence was replaced by a somewhat gloomy view. Even the vaunted
Vulcans were portrayed as pompous and dissembling.
But in the meantime, "Trek" no longer had the TV universe to
itself. "Bablyon 5" (1994-1998) created a world arguably as rich
and complex as the Federation's. Nowadays, science fiction fans can
choose from a host of syndicated and cable shows, including "Gene
Roddenberry's Andromeda" (named for "Star Trek's" late creator
and produced by his widow) and the new "Battlestar Galactica."
Maybe there's just too much competition these days, and the
audience is too fragmented.
Maybe even Capt. Kirk couldn't save the franchise.
Maybe, as with people, so with "Trek": the one enemy that
always wins is Time.
Or perhaps, someday in the distant future, "Star Trek" will
rise again. Fans can have only one response to that hope:
Make it so.
posted by cvo @ 3:51 PM
1 Comments:
At 8:56 AM,
Unknown said…
I must admit that I am sad to see Enterprise go. I really like it, warts and all.
Still, for some years I have been yearning for better science fiction. The question is, "What does 'better' mean?" It is a matter of opinion, of course, but, for me, 'better' means 'harder', as in hard science fiction. In hard science fiction, the nonsense that makes it harder for technical types to suspend disbelief is minimized.
Babylon 5 seemed promising at first, with real physics in the battle scenes, artificial gravity via spinning sections, etc. Unfortunately, there were psychics who grew more central to the main plot in later episodes, and---it was I suppose inevitable---there was the caving in to the use of magical artificial gravity in the White Star fleet.
Anyway, my idea for hard science fiction starts off with a list of negatives: no magic gravity, no warp drive, no transporter, no aliens, no universal translator, and, most importantly for me, no ESP nonsense.
As for the positives, the setting should be our solar system, about 300 or so years in the future. In the present, humans have managed to organize and manage resources on a planetary scale. The next phase in our social development will be to organize and manage resources on the scale of the whole solar system. A planetary scale economy allows enough capital for some interesting projects. Imagine what a solar-system scale economy would allow. Of course, we need to do prospecting to see what resources are available; we need to build mining facilities in various places around the solar system; and we need to build factories that process the raw materials in various places.
The story's history should really get interesting when a range of nuclear propulsion technologies, including nuclear launch vehicles, are developed. In particular, nuclear fusion will provide vast amounts of energy, not just for life on earth but for deep space missions.
A space elevator might play into the history, but it is not, in my view, essential.
Also, the sun is an incredible energy source (already operational nuclear fusion reactor), most of whose radiated energy goes unused. There is a vast amount of solar energy available for doing really big projects, if we build the space-based infrastructure to harvest some of it.
As for conflicts, there are plenty of perennial issues about morality and religion that will always be with us, even as they take on new forms through technological change. These should form the meat of every good plot. The science fiction part provides the scenery and the particular mechanism for manifesting the moral conflict.
The solar-system economy is a big project, and it will take thousands of years to develop. But it will happen, and it will be a cool story. We can start imagining the story now, though. Why doesn't anyone do it?
Post a Comment
<< Home