A Reflection: Was "No Trek" better than "Bad Trek"?

[Newspaper Taxi]

I remember that in the last years of Enterprise before it was canceled there was a sort of philosophical movement on online Trek sites that went like this: "No Trek" would be better than "Bad Trek." This was a phrase charged with a judgement -- that VOY and ENT were of a lower quality.

I've been wondering lately, though. Did the people that feel that way continue to feel that way after there was no Star Trek on the TV airwaves? It's been about two years since Enterprise ended so I figured there would be enough time for people to have time to reflect.

I don't want this to turn into an argument about the quality of Trek at the time -- because I know some people didn't see the last years of VOY and ENT as 'bad Trek'. I personally thought that the two Seasons of ENT were just as good as any season of TNG/DS9. But whatever a person's opinion of Trek and yours may be, just leave it alone. I'm more interested in seeing how the sentiment has changed over time.

I personally miss Trek, but I'm a pretty sentimental person -- I was born the same year TNG started, and I turned 18 the year ENT ended. "In a Mirror Darkly, Part II" played the night of my senior prom. (Don't worry, I taped it.)

 

[Plum]

^^^
Glad ya taped it!

The mantra "no trek is better than bad trek" was around as a way to attack ENT back in the day. And it spilled over to VOY, but at the time I think people were just reacting to ENT as yet another show they saw before. Quality and canon issues aren't really factors I reckon.

These shows were produced by the same people for far too many years, it just felt like the same thing again and again. The studio certainly called those shots, so the story goes.

Berman and Bragas' Star Trek ground itself into the dust, just as anything that goes on too long will fall into entropy. It's the way of things.

Luckily, that utter calamity caused a real rethinking as to the value and need for Star Trek today. The studio (some new guy came in, can't remember) decided Trek was a "tent peg" franchise and to get serious about producing a top class film.

 

[trevanian]

Oh yeah, no trek is WAY better than bad trek. Would you watch new FIREFLY if Glen Larson and his progeny were the 'creative' entities behind a revival? Just cuz it said FIREFLY on it?

I'd've been happy with maybe 4 or 5 good seasons of ds9 being the sum total of ModernTrek, with no TNG, VGR or Lil ENT at all.

Or look at the Bond movies. I'd've been happy if Bond closed up shop from, say, 1970 up till 1985, if it meant we'd've missed the Roger Moore era (that is what he failed to bring to the role AND the sorry writing that it inspired) ... I'd miss not having a few nice Ken Adam designs from a few of those movies, but in terms of the movies themselves ... I'd rather they did not exist. And until Craig is replaced, I am going to act as though the new Bond movies don't exist (which is going to be easier than I thought, since most of the competition like BOURNE is stuff I'm not impressed with either.) Probably the best spy flick I've seen since Timothy Dalton hung up the shoulder holster would have been THE TAILOR OF PANAMA, which is kind of a riff on OUR MAN IN HAVANA, which goes WAY back. If this 'tude means I have to rewatch FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD every year because the newer stuff doesn't work for me, that's fine. When I want to watch something mediocre -- actually WANT to -- then I'll choose a guilty pleasure, not something that infuriates me or is offensive.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I agree with the idea, but it would be a bitch to put into action, simply because what is bad for one fan or one group of fans may be another group's favorite series. ENT is a perfect example. I know there were many issues, but it is my second favorite series, and I know there were many other people who enjoyed it too. So yes, no Trek is better than Bad Trek, but who can we put in charge of saying what bad Trek is?

 

[trevanian]

Forget this 'in charge' business. Vote with your remote control and your ticket purchases.

 

[Lord Garth]

Well, there are two questions I'd put to you, in putting this "No Trek better than Bad Trek" argument to the test:

What would you think if the five-year mission got extended to ten and TOS lasted until 1976 but it kept the same quality as the third season for the rest of the series?

What if TNG stayed the way it was during the first season for all seven years?

Is Bad Trek better than No Trek in either of these cases?

By making this question a "What If?" about TOS and TNG, I can ask the question without having to go through arguing about VOY or ENT and then get away from what I want to make my point about.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

No Trek is way better than bad trek, without a doubt.

I can't explain why, I just feel this way. If Voyager or Enterprise were stand alone syndicated space shows they'd be worth watching sure, the same way stuff like The 4400 is, but as Star Trek they are just supbar.

 

[ialfan]

Yes, no Trek is better than bad Trek but there hasn't been a bad Trek series yet imo (although Voyager is the closest to one).

 

[Kegek]

For me, it amounts to the same thing. Star Trek didn't end in 2005 as far as I'm concerned, it was 2002 when I stopped watching.

 

[Navaros]

I agree with the sentiment that no Trek is better than bad Trek.

Trek's best shows have established a high brand quality. For that brand quality to be sullied by lesser shows of the same brand, degrades the overall brand quality and the fond memories of the high quality legacy. That is not something that is worth doing.

 

[CaptainStoner]

No. Because "Bad Trek", although there is some consensus, is predominantly a very subjective thing. One person's annoying episode is another person's favorite.
Also, though the various series hit a good stride at different points,(I haven't seen ENT yet sorry) I think it is in the nature of good science fiction to be open to taking the kinds of chances that lead to brilliant or bad episodes.
This alchemy began with TOS - it can be ridiculously camp, terrible, brilliant, painfully corny, poignant. It contains ridiculous and genius writing.
And everyone's mileage varies.

 

[misskim86]

it's hard to say..in a way bad trek is good because then there's always hope some will be good..but still no trek means they really have to do something good once they do something

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

Lord Garth said:
What would you think if the five-year mission got extended to ten and TOS lasted until 1976 but it kept the same quality as the third season for the rest of the series?

What if TNG stayed the way it was during the first season for all seven years?



By making this question a "What If?" about TOS and TNG, I can ask the question without having to go through arguing about VOY or ENT and then get away from what I want to make my point about.

By using those two questions, I can understand the sentiment alot better and even appreciate it to a degree. Fascinating.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Even bad episodes - and there weren't really that many, are fun to watch, esp. in the right mood. And I found I'd rather watch old, bad ST episodes than brand new eps of B5, "Stargate" or BSG (either generation).

With no ENT we'd have no Shran episodes, and I loved those.

 

[Who_Trek]

IMO: There is no bad trek. Granted there were episodes I didn't like, but on the whole, I have enjoyed ST in all of its incarnations.

 

[Kegek]

CaptainStoner said:
No. Because "Bad Trek", although there is some consensus, is predominantly a very subjective thing. One person's annoying episode is another person's favorite.

But this is all about subjective decisions, 'Bad Trek' being however you chose to define it.

 

[Forbin]

No Trek is better than bad Trek, yes.
I truly hated V'ger and Boobyprize, and wish they'd never soiled the nest.

Yes I miss Trek now, but I don't miss those two shows at all. I miss the Trek I liked.

 

[MyCylon]

I definitely think that no Trek is better than bad Trek. I don't want to watch something just because it says "Trek" in nice, big friendly letters but because I enjoy it.

The big problem with Trek is that mainstream audiences will usually through everything into one big heap. They don't really distinguish when it comes to the individual shows. So, essentially, a "bad" show (and I do think there is such a thing) will pull down the whole franchise.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

No television is better than bad television.

But there is a large demographic that will watch the box as long as there is a moving image on it, with an occasional burst of sound. Reality TV anyone?

TV that appeals to large audiences today, appeals to the lowest common denominator, but as soon as you begin to define an audience by intelligence, by genre, by profiling, then you reduce that audience to a niche. That's just the nature of television today in a multichannel world.

You won't get the 'Roots' effect ever again.

That's why you have to dress up smart television in dumb clothes. Why you have to wade through catsuits and decon gels and CG eyecandy to get to what should be an intelligent story. But sometimes it's too much of ask, especially for that sector of the audience that actually remembers when television was better, where stories outweighed the eyecandy, where adverts were only ten minutes to the hour, where credits sequences were long enough to actually have a tune, rather than a microsecond of ident.

But the truth is that there is never 'No Trek' In between TOS and TNG, there was TAS, the novels, the comic books, the RPGs.

And now, with ENT of the air, we still had novels, comic books and fan films. And it didn't take long before a film was announced.

 

[Deckerd]

We have no Trek now. Is it better now than when the franchise was running? I would vote no.