One of my earliest
memories was watching the Apollo Moon missions on TV.
One of my other earliest
memories was hiding behind my mother from a frightening image on TV: a giant,
alien, disembodied head. No, this was before Nixon. If you don’t know how those two could possibly be
connected (besides an early indication that my generation watched too much TV) …
then you don’t know Star Trek. (That
episode, by the way, was “The Corbomite Maneuver”.)
Could it have really been
fifty years ago? A whole half century since the single most influential
entertainment show in television history debuted.
Yeah, that’s a big claim,
but think about it. That weird space show with the bad special effects did more
than spawn a bunch of movies and spin-offs. It influenced people who became
astronauts themselves, as well as scientists of every stripe. It became a
cultural phenomenon, to the extent that even people who hate science fiction
recognize “Live long and prosper”, and “Beam me up, Scotty”. It went all the
way from there down to a little kid who was inspired to write stories about
space himself, and who now defines himself as a writer above almost all else.
Just to be clear, that
would be me.
Lots of electronic ink is
being spilled this week over the big five oh. Why did Star Trek become so huge? The
simple answer is that it held one thing that so much futurism of the time didn’t:
optimism. It posited a future universe in which we not only survived nuclear
weapons, racial conflict, despots and election campaigns, we triumphed. We went
out beyond our world together, as one race.
Can’t we all just get
along? In Star Trek, we did. That was
what it was about, not the rubber alien faces and over-emoting.
On a personal level, it
led me not only to write stories myself, but to have my first fictional role
model. I was a shy kid, suppressing my emotions, misunderstood—alien. The
character of Spock spoke to me … I even had a blue long-sleeved shirt with an insignia
on it that looked a lot like his uniform shirt.
The less said about my
haircut at the time, the better … although it may help explain why I wasn’t the
most popular kid.
As a teen, it seemed like
I was in an exclusive club, maybe too exclusive—sometimes I thought I was
the only Star Trek fan in the state.
In a weird way, I was upset when it went from a canceled cult show to a
franchise. It was like losing ownership. But now Star Trek belongs to the world, and after fifty years it’s still
going strong.
That’s a good thing—the
world needs all the optimism it can get.
The original series is still in syndication. I know I've caught odd episodes of it here and there. I actually prefer the Next Generation, particularly when they finally got rid of that Crusher brat.
ReplyDeleteIt's always been airing somewhere! At the moment they're having a marathon on BBC America. Me, I prefer the original series--especially now that someone's inserted updated visual effects into it.
DeleteUnlike the previous comment, I prefer the original Star Trek. It had one other quality that you did not mention. It had characters that we cared about. That is the essence of any good tale. Characters or at least one that one want to see succeed. The to go boldly forth was brilliant. With all our faults we continue to explore.
ReplyDeleteI agree! Although I've enjoyed all the series, (serieses?) there's something about the original that has never quite been matched.
DeleteWhy does everyone hate Wesley? Why is intelligence so derided? Ok, the character was badly written, bu even so. I always feel so hurt on Gene's behalf, as Wesley was supposed to represent himself.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a tendency of adults to look down on realistic teens--we saw the same thing on Buffy the Vampire Slayer with Dawn, who was one of the most realistic adolescents I ever saw on TV--and was largely hated. Wesley's problem is that he was a kid, and written as a kid, and for some reason that just bugs people.
DeleteI prefer the original show to TNG; even though my favourite Trek is Deep Space Nine, and TNG has a lot of far superior episodes. Personally I think it's because when the TNG fans started going to cons they seemed to take it all FAR too seriously. Maybe I'm just old.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we all take it too seriously -- it's great TV, but still TV! But to me, there's something about the characters: I identified with Spock and McCoy more than anyone from any later series.
DeleteI love the original Star Trek, never could relate to any of the spin offs. I think it is because there was a special charm about the bad sets, the heavy handed morality plays that were every episode, and of course, the characters.
ReplyDeleteBe careful about mentioning bad sets -- I've learned in the last day that original series fans can be pretty sensitive about its production values!
DeleteDeep Space Nine was my favorite. Indiewire did a story on the best and worst Treks--DS9 was rated the best, Star Trek: Nemesis the worst.
ReplyDeleteAnd if it were not for Lucille Ball, Star Trek probably would not exist at all. This was from A Mighty Girl on Facebook, 9/8/16:
In honor of today's 50th anniversary of Star Trek, we're celebrating the woman responsible for saving the iconic science fiction show -- comedian and entrepreneur Lucille Ball! In 1964, Ball was the sole owner of Desilu Studios and the first woman to ever run a major Hollywood studio. At the time, Desilu producers were looking for ideas that could be developed into new series and they contracted two ambitious writers to develop pilots: Gene Roddenberry with "Star Trek" and Bruce Geller with "Mission: Impossible."
Desilu took the Star Trek pilot to CBS with whom they had a first-refusal agreement but the network rejected it and opted to pick up another new space-themed show "Lost in Space." The studio then took the pilot, "The Cage," to NBC which called it "too cerebral" but, rather than rejecting it outright, they took the unprecedented move of ordering a second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before." The network decided to order a season but the Desilu Board of Directors balked. Fearing that the studio was overstretching itself with three expensive new programs -- Star Trek, Mission Impossible, and a western called The Long Hunt for April Savage -- all but one of the board members voted to cancel Star Trek in February 1966.
Lucille Ball, however, had high hopes for the fledgling show and was impressed by Roddenberry’s vision so she used her power as board chair to override the decision. Production of the show continued and the first episode aired in September of that year. As studio accountant Edwin Holly later conceded, "If it were not for Lucy, there would be no 'Star Trek' today." So the next time that you’re watching Star Trek -- or one of the many science fiction future worlds that it inspired -- remember that you have one more reason to love Lucy!
I first herd that story years ago, and was amazed. Lucy needs more credit!
DeleteBut I wonder what ever happened to April Savage?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete