Is Star Trek old and in need of re-engineering, or does it
need to be abandoned to the museum of 20th Century science fiction?
I was getting caught up on HBO’s The Newsroom last night, and in episode 5 of Season 3, there was a
Star Trek reference that peeked my interest. Trek references in pop culture are
telling signs of the status of the franchise. If Trek is on the cover of Time
magazine (1995) or getting full page coverage in The New York Times (2009),
then it is probably a good year to be a Trek fan. But this reference put me in
a particularly morose mood about the state of Trek. It was not a negative
reference. The problem was the type of person the reference associated with
Star Trek, and not because the character was a stereotypical nerd like on Big Bang Theory. It wasn’t like that at
all.
For those of you who do not know The Newsroom or Aaron Sorkin, this is a show (and a show runner)
that glamorizes the past over the future. The show’s hero Will McAvoy played by
Jeff Daniels is constantly equated to the 17th Century anti-hero Don
Quixote (just as The West Wing’s hero
Jed Bartlet was a throw-back to JFK). The
central conflict of the episode with the Trek reference is whether the newsroom
can adapt to a new millennial corporate overseer who wants to replace their
Edward R. Murrow business model with an Internet-driven/TMZ/citizen-journalist
style of news. Just one of the questionable things they are being asked to
broadcast is an on-air debate between a rape victim and her accused rapist. The
show’s heroes can’t adapt, as evidenced by the crusty old president of the news
division, Charlie Skinner played by Sam Waterson, suffering a heart attack in
this episode. A young reporter, Jim Harper played by John Gallagher Jr., is
just as old-school idealistic as the other heroes of the show (and Sorkin), as
evidenced by the fact that he broke up with his girlfriend who left the
newsroom to write gossipy click-driven Internet columns, as opposed to the ‘real
journalism’ he thinks he does. Sorkin has said in the commentary that Jim is a
younger version of Charlie, the embodiment of the old ways of journalism
instilled in a young man just starting out.
Jim is the character referred to in this episode as someone
who watches Star Trek. He takes umbrage at the fact that someone confused the
Star Trek episode he was watching with Star Wars. There is a scene where we
actually see him watching a classic Star Trek episode on his iPad. To my ears
this brief, insignificant reference, screamed this (probably unintended)
message: the guy who says ‘piss off 2015, I prefer my media like it was 1955’
is the Star Trek fan.
Am I overreaching? No. Consider the summersaults Hollywood
types are doing right now to update Star Trek for modern sensibilities. The Bad
Robot reboot is one example. But those who want to produce a new TV series, who
will have to film dozens of hours of TV, have a higher hurdle to make their
show relatable to modern audiences, of which the most important demographic
will be millennials.
Enter Michael Gummelt, apparently in talks with
Paramount/CBS, who said to TrekMovie.com about a potential series: “[Star Trek] needs to be reinvented for a
new generation. Not a reboot, that’s already being done in the movies. What I
want for this series is for it to be the future – a Star Trek TV series that
feels modern and feels futuristic relative to our current times.”
Futuristic relative to our
current times.
There’s the rub. This is the real
reason Trek canon gets a bad wrap by current Hollywood people involved with
Trek. It’s not that writers and producers feel constrained by fictional facts, decades
old lines of dialogue, Trek history. They desire to be free of the old Trek
aesthetic, the look, feel and sensibility of TOS and TNG-era Trek. They want a
Star Trek that seems futuristic to people in this decade, not the 60s or the 80s.
Classic Star Trek was standard science fiction of that era (written
by some well-know 60s science fiction writers), but as TV, Roddenberry knew
that the setting, the characters, and how they interact had to be visually
familiar and relatable to his audience. His solution was to make the Enterprise
look, feel and sound like a WWII battleship in outer space. There was the
bridge, complete with pinging sounds; tight crew quarters; a sickbay; a rec.
room, etc. The viewer tuning in could make the necessary suspension of
disbelief—Oh I see, it’s the Navy is space—and then enjoy the story.
When TNG
came around 20 years later, that TV audience did not have the same cultural
reference points as a generation before—we did not come of age close to WWII
and Korea or having seen a lot of WWII movies. So the Enterprise-D resembles a
plush, leather-interior luxury cruise liner, more Love Boat than the Battle of Midway. The bridge, it has been said
by the show’s own writers, looked like the lobby of a chincy hotel; sprawling crew
quarters; a lounge (ten-forward); state-of-the-art entertainment (holodecks);
children romping down the corridors—a cruise ship in space. Voyager, TNG’s
sister show, was virtually identical in sensibility.
In these shows, the way the characters interact is deeply 20th
Century. They communicate using glorified radios. Decisions are made from a
central authority, distributed down a clear chain of command. They hang out
socially in rec. rooms and lounges (bars, when they are in alien environments).
There are more robots and devices that want to be human than there are humans
who want to be more technological. Nobody ever Tweets, or even emails. I don’t
expect Twitter to still be a functional company in the 23rd or 24th
Centuries. But you have to admit that characters on even TNG-era Star Trek do
not interface with technology as much as the average person does in a coffee
shop or elementary school in 2015.
The change to Trek lore that potential future Trek writers
and producers are calling for is not about technology per se, faster warp drives and
sleeker communicators (there is not more archaic-sounding term than
‘communicator’ is there?). No, the so-called necessary change is about the
interface between people and technology. It’s about a millennial seeing a star
ship on TV they’d want to hang out on, instead of one modeled on a naval
battleship, an ‘iBridge’ grafted onto a naval battleship, or a cruise ship.
This is why Michael Gummelt says that the future trek series
he envisions is “set
sometime in the future, distant enough that it doesn’t really matter which
universe it takes place in. It’s universe-agnostic.”
These
are the words of someone who wants to tell a Star Trek story on a completely
blank canvas. He wants to eject the archetypes of characters that would be
familiar to those of us who grew up in the 1980s, or who saw many WWII movies,
or, in the case of Kirk’s archetype, read stories about 18th Century
naval captains (Horatio Hornblower, as a character born in 1776, as a piece of
fiction born in 1937). All of that, and necessarily all of Trek canon, needs to
be relegated to the dust bin of pop culture history. In exchange for… what
exactly? Maybe it will be great, modern science fiction. But will it be Star
Trek? If so, what threads of Star Trek DNA will it shed and what will it
retain? On The Newsroom, the heroes have
to ask what exactly can be considered news in 2015? For us Trekkies, what is
Star Trek in 2015?