Digital Joe #24

---

Tools:
Recommend this news to a friend »

---

I´m not ashamed to say that I am a Trekkie. I know it´s not en vogue to admit that in public, but I am. My introduction to the "Star Trek" franchise was a television broadcast of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" in what had to be either 1986 or 1987. I begged my father to let me stay up entirely too long past my bedtime so I could see this movie in all its ABC-broadcast, commercial chopped fullscreen goodness. Surprisingly, he did…on the condition that I did not have a problem getting up the next morning for school.

Now, before you laugh, remember that I was all of 7/8 years old at this time. And I´ve never been a morning person.

But, anyway, something struck me at that time about this new universe I was being allowed to play in. Surely "TMP" isn´t the most audience friendly of the "Trek" films, especially for a young kid like me. But I trucked through it, enduring the film through the snowy picture thanks to the thunderstorm outside.

Around this same time, my mother, grandmother, sister and I made our way to the theater to see "Star Trek IV" on the big screen (you know, the one with the whales). From that time forward, I was hooked. I was there, front and center, when "Star Trek: The Next Generation" debuted. I remember crying like a baby when Tasha Yar was killed by a tar pit monster called Armus near the end of the first season. These people became my second family.

To this day, I couldn´t tell you why this happened. Maybe it was because we moved around a lot back in those days. Maybe it was the one thing that stayed the same no matter where I was or who I called my "friends". Whatever the reason, I diligently watched…studied, really…every single episode, even the worst of the worst. I was completely on board when "Deep Space Nine" premiered. (It´s still the best "Trek" ever created, thank you very much.)

I was even there, still studying and memorizing every episode, when "Voyager" hit the airwaves. When that show left television in 2001, I was leaving college. The end of the 24th century shows marked a turning point in my life. "Trek" had always been very important to me and continues to be to this day. But with each year that passed, I grew up a bit more and this universe I reveled in became a little…cheesier, idealistic, simplistic, wholesome.

Regardless, I still trucked out and bought "The Original Series", "The Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine" on DVD when they came out. I still enjoy them but, looking back on the episodes I thought were truly groundbreaking back in "the day", they are beginning to show their age.

It´s a harsh truth we all have to face. The things we enjoyed in our younger years may not be the things we´ll be able to enjoy as we grow up. The lessons in "Trek" are still relevant today: topics such as talking through our problems, racism, hate, xenophobia. It´s the way they are presented and "resolved" that causes the biggest problems.

As we get older, our worldview becomes more and more jaded. Things happen that entirely change who we are and the way we look at the world. Would the new "Battlestar Galactica" been a hit back in the early 1990s? Probably not. Likewise, would the original "Trek" make it on today´s television? Nope.

It´s not because both aren´t quality entertainment-they are. The difference is the time period. "TOS" ("The Original Series", for the record) is a product of its time just as "BSG" is a product of our post-9/11 world. And all these things that shape our world also shape the way we look at the past.

The reason, I believe, "Trek" died with the cancellation of "Enterprise" isn´t because the look or quality of the show went down. It´s because the show runners behind "Voyager" and "Enterprise" forgot to let the show evolve with the world it was being broadcast to. Gone are the days where it was okay to show a group of people encountering a problem and "fixing" it within 42 minutes. Programs like "24" made that type of dramatic storytelling all but obsolete. Someone forgot that this isn´t the 1960s and shows like "Leave It to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" would never fly. Yes, the Gene Roddenberry future is a positive one, but that does not mean it also has to be unflinchingly optimistic.

The world isn´t quite the place where Kirk and company could come in, see a problem with two races with opposite sides of their face different colors and "fix" it before the end credits roll. Granted, the world of the late 1960s wasn´t that cut and dry, either, but television of the day WAS cut and dry. Television today isn´t.

I found myself, last week, getting angry about an episode of "TNG" everyone involved thought addressed a real life issue well. Personally, I always thought it was a cop out on their part and still do. With a show that was being watched by 10-12 million people a week in syndication, the writers could have afforded to take a chance or two. With this particular episode (season 5´s "The Outcast"), no chances were taken. In fact, the issue really wasn´t addressed. But to read interviews and quotes from the creative personnel, you would think they would have been nominated for a humanitarian award.

Then I started to think about the rest of the series. This show was phenomenally successful with legions of fans everywhere in the world. Yet it did nothing extraordinary. The program always stopped just shy of making a powerful statement. The best episode of the series didn´t even have a message to it ("The Best of Both Worlds"), except, perhaps that no matter what happens, humanity survives.

I´ve obviously become disenchanted with most "Trek" but I´m not entirely sure it´s fair of me. As I said before, a show is a product of its time. Surely there were programs that tackled hard hitting subjects on a regular basis during "TNG"s run; however, the fact still remains that I am holding a 1980/1990s show to 2006 standards. Not an equitable equation, I know.

I wonder what this program is going to look like in 2016…or 2030.

---