Has the Trek franchise exhausted itself

[velour]

If I did my math right, I counted that there are more than 700 Trek episodes and movies. That's a lot of stories and themes that have already been told. I am reminded of a line that McCoy spoke in TMP, "What more is there than the universe, Spock?" The Trek franchise has been there and done that, so to speak.

It does appear that there might be some exhaustion.

Of course, Decker responded to McCoy, "Other dimensions, higher levels of beings." If future, or current, Trek showrunners are creative, I think that they can resuscitate the franchise. However, the nuTrek movies haven't impressed for me. It is a weak imitation of the original.

I hope the Discovery showrunners have something compelling up their sleeves that they will show us.

This I think gets to the heart of the matter. I don't really think Trek should try to be all things to all people, or to capture the ridiculous box office gross of the MCU and Star Wars. Star Trek, and correct me if I'm wrong, has pretty much always had a core audience, and it speaks to that core audience. That core audience is quite large, but did Trek ever have crossover appeal into general audience territory? I think there's value in trying to bring in new viewers, increasing Trek's appeal, sure. I definitely want to get more people into the fold. But I think Trek's history, and its rather accurate reputation for being cerebral and nerdy but not in a cool way, is just going to naturally turn some people off. I mean, Beyond is one of the coolest Trek films ever made -- it's sleek, fast-paced, fun, and has an exciting story. But my girlfriend's mom said she didn't care to see it because "Star Trek is too heady and philosophical."

One of things that Star Wars has done well in luring in younger viewers is with their animated series. I found the Lego Star Wars Freemaker series very fun to watch. It doesn't take itself too seriously, yet it is still very compelling. Then again, I think the Star Wars franchise lends itself to animation much better than ST would.

I can't imagine a cute animated Trek series for kids would work. Cute and Trek are oxymoronic.

For better or worse, ST does have a reputation for being cerebral and nerdy. And there is truth to that reputation. It is what it is.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Then again, I think the Star Wars franchise lends itself to animation much better than ST would.

I can't imagine a cute animated Trek series for kids would work. Cute and Trek are oxymoronic.

Yeah, TAS was not exactly a kid's show. It dealt with some weirdly heavy themes and trippy stories. It was the 70s, lol.

 

[Swarm Emperor]

Whether you liked the show or not, Voyager opened up dozens, if not hundreds of story possibilities in the multitudinous races they encountered. It just takes a creative mind, and something new and fresh could easily come out of ST yet again.

 

[Tenacity]

I can't imagine a cute animated Trek series for kids would work. Cute and Trek are oxymoronic.

A Trek animated show on the level of The Clone Wars I think would work, it dealt with serious themes, was well written, and included good character development.

 

[gamer1]

Well Star Trek has definately exhausted itself, but mainly due to ito limiting itself due to its obession to always try to be a social commentary instead of just good drama.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Well Star Trek has definately exhausted itself, but mainly due to ito limiting itself due to its obession to always try to be a social commentary instead of just good drama.

Oh, social commentary stories. You mean the stories they've been telling since season 1 of TOS. If only Star Trek wasn't so much like Star Trek! Gah!

 

[fireproof78]

A Trek animated show on the level of The Clone Wars I think would work, it dealt with serious themes, was well written, and included good character development.

Certainly could start it with the Starfleet Academy style series that keeps getting kicked around as an idea. Why not utilize it to bring in a younger audience?

Even Star Wars has worked to expand itself by utilizing different avenues of merchandising like science based toys and educational workbooks. Seriously? Star Trek can't step in to the educational side of things and be about science?

There is plenty of rich material out there, including animation (which, doesn't have to be kid stuff, by the way), merchandising, and the like. It doesn't have to be full Star Wars or Marvel, but a middle ground could do wonders to show how not exhausted the franchise is.

Otherwise, it's just sitting around, waiting for the next "event" to kick it back in to public consciousness, and then peak back down. It's like a really weird leap year thing right now.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Well Star Trek has definately exhausted itself, but mainly due to ito limiting itself due to its obession to always try to be a social commentary instead of just good drama.

Star Trek has always offered more than just social commentary. "The Trouble with Tribbles" is not social commentary, at least not primarily. Neither is "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy." Neither is Star Trek (2009). By contrast, "Errand of Mercy" is. So is The Voyage Home and "Living Witness." So is Into Darkness. I'd say it's a sign of vitality that Star Trek can offer a variety of material, including social commentary. But it seems some people (I don't know if you're one of them) don't want to see any social commentary at all on Star Trek, because they don't like it or think it makes good drama, not because there's anything creatively exhausting about doing it.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Even Star Wars has worked to expand itself by utilizing different avenues of merchandising like science based toys and educational workbooks. Seriously? Star Trek can't step in to the educational side of things and be about science?

That would be awesome.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Star Trek has always offered more than just social commentary. "The Trouble with Tribbles" is not social commentary, at least not primarily.

Maybe not primarily, but there is a subtle environmentalism and invasive species subtext to "The Trouble with Tribbles."

And with regards to original post, I think many of Star Trek's best dramatic presentations are also the ones with a social comment. Star Trek is, in fact, proof that the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek has always offered more than just social commentary. "The Trouble with Tribbles" is not social commentary, at least not primarily. Neither is "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy." Neither is Star Trek (2009). By contrast, "Errand of Mercy" is. So is The Voyage Home and "Living Witness." So is Into Darkness. I'd say it's a sign of vitality that Star Trek can offer a variety of material, including social commentary. But it seems some people (I don't know if you're one of them) don't want to see any social commentary at all on Star Trek, because they don't like it or think it makes good drama, not because there's anything creatively exhausting about doing it.

I will disagree on ST 09, but other than that, I agree that not all Star Trek has to be social commentary, and some commentary in TOS would be rather interesting to revisist ("Omega Glory" anyone?).

I think the main concern I see with social commentary is that it is often substituted for good drama. As long as the message is driven home (some times with a sledgehammer) then the show must have been good, right?

I would rather have good storytelling and characters, and the commentary will flow from there.

That would be awesome.

I know, right?

Maybe not primarily, but there is a subtle environmentalism and invasive species subtext to "The Trouble with Tribbles."

And with regards to original post, I think many of Star Trek's best dramatic presentations are also the ones with a social comment. Star Trek is, in fact, proof that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Lies and propaganda

 

[KelisThePoet]

Maybe not primarily, but there is a subtle environmentalism and invasive species subtext to "The Trouble with Tribbles."

I'd never thought about that. I wonder if it was intended or is just available for viewers to interpret because "The Trouble with Tribbles," despite its reputation for hokeyness, is actually decent sci-fi, like (almost) all Star Trek. So rather than just give us fluffy balls of trouble, the writers give us a roughly scientific explanation for them (species adapted for survival removed from original, predator-heavy habitat), and you can apply a social comment to that scientific premise, if you like.

I will disagree on ST 09

Really? I'd be interested to hear what you consider to be social commentary in that movie. I've never seen much, apart from some of the underlying themes that come with the franchise, but just because I haven't seen something, doesn't mean it isn't there (and doesn't mean I wouldn't like to).

I think the main concern I see with social commentary is that it is often substituted for good drama. As long as the message is driven home (some times with a sledgehammer) then the show must have been good, right?

I know that what I'm about to say might make me unpopular on these boards, but what you're describing sounds like a lot of Star Trek: The Next Generation to me.

 

[gamer1]

Oh, social commentary stories. You mean the stories they've been telling since season 1 of TOS. If only Star Trek wasn't so much like Star Trek! Gah!

Well it is simply not working anymore And that is why Star Trek has deflated like a balloon. Like soneone wrote, they should focus on good drama / Sci fi and let the social commentary flow from that instead to focus on a social commentary and let the story flow from it.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Well it is simply not working anymore And that is why Star Trek has deflated like a balloon. Like soneone wrote, they should focus on good drama / Sci fi and let the social commentary flow from that instead to focus on a social commentary and let the story flow from it.

I should just make this quote my signature line because I seem to use it on this board whenever someone has a bone to pick with Trek's social commentary: "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there." - Gene Roddenberry

Social commentary was the goal of Star Trek from the beginning. Telling great dramatic stories through the lens of social commentary was the heart of the series. Of course that isn't the core of every single story, but the basis of Trek, no matter what the episode, is that a diverse group of people, of different species, races, cultures, sexualities, genders, etc., work together for the benefit of all.

And I'd argue that many of Trek's best dramas had a social commentary as a through line. The Devil in the Dark comes to mind immediately.

The Star Trek franchise hasn't "deflated like a balloon." That's total hyperbole. If this were 2005 and we were coming right off the cancellation of Enterprise and a couple years out from Nemesis, then yeah, back then it had kinda deflated. But we're on the cusp of a brand new Trek tv show, we just had a well-received (if financially underperforming) feature film, there's huge conventions every year, tons of books published a year, and a lively, active, vocal fanbase online. I wouldn't call that a deflated balloon. It's fine.

 

[KelisThePoet]

Well it is simply not working anymore And that is why Star Trek has deflated like a balloon. Like soneone wrote, they should focus on good drama / Sci fi and let the social commentary flow from that instead to focus on a social commentary and let the story flow from it.

The trouble with just letting the social commentary naturally "flow" from the drama is that social commentary is about going against the flow of what's popular and taken for granted in society; what's taken for granted as a value and taken for granted as entertaining (a commentary about how perfect everything in society just already is would be mere propaganda). Social commentary happens only when an individual with an unpopular or at least idiosyncratic viewpoint stands up and insists on saying something that doesn't flow naturally, that goes against the flow.

But social commentary in fiction can be blunt and clumsy, or worse, self-important and dull. What Star Trek needs to do (and what it has done in the past, at its best) is to neither cut social commentary, nor subordinate it to entertaining drama; but to artfully present well-planned, deliberate social commentary as entertaining drama. Plan a deliberate message, but come up with such a logical story for that message that the message seems to flow naturally from the story. Courtiers of the Italian Renaissance coined the term sprezzatura, meaning studied nonchalance, the artful appearance of artlessness, a presentation so deliberately well-honed that it comes off perfectly natural. Sprezzatura is what Star Trek needs in its social commentary.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd never thought about that. I wonder if it was intended or is just available for viewers to interpret because "The Trouble with Tribbles," despite its reputation for hokeyness, is actually decent sci-fi, like (almost) all Star Trek. So rather than just give us fluffy balls of trouble, the writers give us a roughly scientific explanation for them (species adapted for survival removed from original, predator-heavy habitat), and you can apply a social comment to that scientific premise, if you like.Really? I'd be interested to hear what you consider to be social commentary in that movie. I've never seen much, apart from some of the underlying themes that come with the franchise, but just because I haven't seen something, doesn't mean it isn't there (and doesn't mean I wouldn't like to).

I've elaborated on this before, but I think 09 has two through lines in it. The first is the importance of father figures and mentors to make great men. Pike for Kirk (and Kirk Sr. to Prime Kirk) and Sarek for Spock. The second is the danger of allowing the darkness to consume you, which is a little more generic. We get these pictures in Nero for Spock and Marcus for Kirk. It's nice because we actually get to see what the darker side could potentially look like. But, I think the fathers' one is the preeminent, and the more important one.

I know that what I'm about to say might make me unpopular on these boards, but what you're describing sounds like a lot of Star Trek: The Next Generation to me.

At times, it certainly could be. But, it also had some fantastic moments of character development that worked well enough with the social commentary to leave an impact. There was enough mix of both throughout all seven seasons to see wonderful examples of every kind, from good, bad and all in between.

I should just make this quote my signature line because I seem to use it on this board whenever someone has a bone to pick with Trek's social commentary: "Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there." - Gene Roddenberry

Social commentary was the goal of Star Trek from the beginning. Telling great dramatic stories through the lens of social commentary was the heart of the series. Of course that isn't the core of every single story, but the basis of Trek, no matter what the episode, is that a diverse group of people, of different species, races, cultures, sexualities, genders, etc., work together for the benefit of all.

And I'd argue that many of Trek's best dramas had a social commentary as a through line. The Devil in the Dark comes to mind immediately.

The Star Trek franchise hasn't "deflated like a balloon." That's total hyperbole. If this were 2005 and we were coming right off the cancellation of Enterprise and a couple years out from Nemesis, then yeah, back then it had kinda deflated. But we're on the cusp of a brand new Trek tv show, we just had a well-received (if financially underperforming) feature film, there's huge conventions every year, tons of books published a year, and a lively, active, vocal fanbase online. I wouldn't call that a deflated balloon. It's fine.

I would generally agree, and think that social commentary is a part of Star Trek's original premise, but I think there needs to be balance. Even GR would argue that their first goal is to entertain people.

The trouble with just letting the social commentary naturally "flow" from the drama is that social commentary is about going against the flow of what's popular and taken for granted in society; what's taken for granted as a value and taken for granted as entertaining (a commentary about how perfect everything in society just already is would be mere propaganda). Social commentary happens only when an individual with an unpopular or at least idiosyncratic viewpoint stands up and insists on saying something that doesn't flow naturally, that goes against the flow.

But social commentary in fiction can be blunt and clumsy, or worse, self-important and dull. What Star Trek needs to do (and what it has done in the past, at its best) is to neither cut social commentary, nor subordinate it to entertaining drama; but to artfully present well-planned, deliberate social commentary as entertaining drama. Plan a deliberate message, but come up with such a logical story for that message that the message seems to flow naturally from the story. Courtiers of the Italian Renaissance coined the term sprezzatura, meaning studied nonchalance, the artful appearance of artlessness, a presentation so deliberately well-honed that it comes off perfectly natural. Sprezzatura is what Star Trek needs in its social commentary.

Good drama isn't something that has to flow from what entertains society. Good drama is usually entertaining in of it self, whether it's Romeo and Juliet or Game of Thrones. Crafting a good characters and drama will flow naturally, even if the commentary goes against the grain. Commentary can have so much more sprezzatura, as you say, that the commentary can be entirely missed.

 

[KelisThePoet]

I've elaborated on this before, but I think 09 has two through lines in it. The first is the importance of father figures and mentors to make great men. Pike for Kirk (and Kirk Sr. to Prime Kirk) and Sarek for Spock. The second is the danger of allowing the darkness to consume you, which is a little more generic. We get these pictures in Nero for Spock and Marcus for Kirk. It's nice because we actually get to see what the darker side could potentially look like. But, I think the fathers' one is the preeminent, and the more important one.

I was using the term social commentary more narrowly to mean commentary on particular political issues (usually current ones) or particular aspects of the way a society is organized (usually the current society of the authors). By my narrower use of the term, I'd say that Into Darkness is social commentary, as it's overtly relevant to the war on terror and to drone warfare, whereas Star Trek (2009) is not. But I do think Star Trek (2009) is a thematically rich, artful movie, in part for reasons similar to those you describe above, as well as other reasons.

Good drama isn't something that has to flow from what entertains society. Good drama is usually entertaining in of it self, whether it's Romeo and Juliet or Game of Thrones. Crafting a good characters and drama will flow naturally, even if the commentary goes against the grain. Commentary can have so much more sprezzatura, as you say, that the commentary can be entirely missed.

Well, "good" is subjective and often used to mean entertaining, but if you consider good drama to be character-driven, I still don't think social commentary will naturally flow from that sort of good drama, at least not always. If I'm committed to writing character-driven drama, I need to let the plot go where I believe the characters would take it, were they real people, and that plot direction might not fit with the comment I want to make. For instance, "Galileo Seven" is a great, character-driven story. It basically puts the characters in a situation to see what they'll do. By contrast the plot of "A Private Little War" pushes the characters and the audience along to the point it needs to make about a neo-colonialist arms race like the one that was going on in southeast Asia at the time the episodes was written. The former episode deals with complex enough themes that you could argue they have some social relevance. The latter episode is true to the characters it uses. But I doubt the latter happens (at least not very often) if the discussion in the writers' room always subordinates social commentary to character drama.

 

[fireproof78]

I was using the term social commentary more narrowly to mean commentary on particular political issues (usually current ones) or particular aspects of the way a society is organized (usually the current society of the authors). By my narrower use of the term, I'd say that Into Darkness is social commentary, as it's overtly relevant to the war on terror and to drone warfare, whereas Star Trek (2009) is not. But I do think Star Trek (2009) is a thematically rich, artful movie, in part for reasons similar to those you describe above, as well as other reasons.

But, consider the societal emphasis on fatherhood and what is lacking in society right now. If you consider that facet, then, yes, 09 is commenting on a specific societal issue that is highly relevant, if not broadly recognized-yet.

Well, "good" is subjective and often used to mean entertaining, but if you consider good drama to be character-driven, I still don't think social commentary will naturally flow from that sort of good drama, at least not always. If I'm committed to writing character-driven drama, I need to let the plot go where I believe the characters would take it, were they real people, and that plot direction might not fit with the comment I want to make. For instance, "Galileo Seven" is a great, character-driven story. It basically puts the characters in a situation to see what they'll do. By contrast the plot of "A Private Little War" pushes the characters and the audience along to the point it needs to make about a neo-colonialist arms race like the one that was going on in southeast Asia at the time the episodes was written. The former episode deals with complex enough themes that you could argue they have some social relevance. The latter episode is true to the characters it uses. But I doubt the latter happens (at least not very often) if the discussion in the writers' room always subordinates social commentary to character drama.

But, "Private Little War" flows from the drama because of Kirk's personal involvement. Good drama, like social commentary, is very much purposeful, in terms of the set up of the plot. I think both can flow, maybe not "naturally" but purposefully if the characters are crafted in a realistic manner.
You don't need to subordinate one to the other. You work with both in the crafting process, either through larger themes, or specific commentary.

 

[KelisThePoet]

But, consider the societal emphasis on fatherhood and what is lacking in society right now. If you consider that facet, then, yes, 09 is commenting on a specific societal issue that is highly relevant, if not broadly recognized-yet.

Good point. As with my comment about environmental themes in "The Trouble With Tribbles," I wonder if the authors intended the story as commentary, or whether viewers can take it as such because it's a good father/son story, and such stories are currently relevant to many viewers. I'm not sure there's any way to know. I'm not sure it matters.

I think both can flow, maybe not "naturally" but purposefully if the characters are crafted in a realistic manner. You don't need to subordinate one to the other. You work with both in the crafting process, either through larger themes, or specific commentary.

I'm fine with that.

 

[fireproof78]

Good point. As with my comment about environmental themes in "The Trouble With Tribbles," I wonder if the authors intended the story as commentary, or whether viewers can take it as such because it's a good father/son story, and such stories are currently relevant to many viewers. I'm not sure there's any way to know. I'm not sure it matters.

I'm going to take it one step further as far as ST 09. Yes, I do wonder if the authors intended such a commentary, but it is difficult for me to watch it and not see it as a reflection of the current millennial generation. Father figures, in much of media, are portrayed as very much lovable but incompetent, woefully unprepared for the trials of parenthood, diapers or playdates.

ST 09 showcases not only leadership in Captain Robau, George Kirk and Captain Pike, but it also shows us a Kirk whom we know could be a great leader. We know what his potential is, but without his dad, he isn't reaching for it. As I said in my other post, ST 09 works by giving us mirrors that reflect what the heroes could become, but we also have positive mirrors in the above leaders, and, if one is familiar with TOS at all, we know that Kirk can be a leader as well. Nero even calls Prime Kirk "a great man."

Whether intentional or not, I think Kelvin Kirk's arc, especially in 09 and carrying on through Into Darkness, is a perfect example of the need of a father/mentor and something that will resonate more as the film ages.