From: LANGSTOJ@EGLIN.AF.MIL
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: ST:TNG Critic...
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:00:00 GMT


                               E G L I N     A F B

From:  JEFFREY K. LANGSTON                  Date:     16-Dec-1992 07:11am CST
       LANGSTOJ                             Tel No:   904-882-5840
Dept:  WL/MNOR

TO:    Internet Addressee                   ( _SMTP[SF-LOVERS-TV@RUTGERS.EDU] )


Subject: ST:TNG Critic...

I, too, am disillusioned with Star Trek:  The Next Generation and have felt 
so for years.  On top of all that, I couldn't exactly find the words to 
relay why I felt this way about the show.  But then I came across this 
article in the December 1991 issue of Omni magazine.  The cover and 2 
articles were devoted to Star Trek in it's 25th anniversary year, and one, 
by Melinda Snodgrass, sums up exactly how I've felt these 5+ years that 
ST:TNG has been airing.  This article is reprinted without anyone's 
permission and it's purpose is merely to relay an opinion.

                           BOLDY GOING NOWHERE?

                           by Melinda Snodgrass


    World hunger, global warming, energy depletion -- small cheese when 
measured against the looming dangers of a Klingon civil war, and whether 
dilithium crystals will really decrystalize when exposed to Sselgninaem.  
But nobody said it would be easy to muse on Star Trek's impact on society 
during the last twenty-five years.  That's why Omni asked me, a former Star 
Trek executive consultant, to do it.
    Star Trek's creator and executive producer, Gene Roddenberry, has 
joined the august group of men with an agenda.  Beware of men concerned 
with their place in history.  With politicians this obsession usually ends 
up costing you in either money or blood.  In the case of Star Trek:  The 
Next Generation, it ends up wasting your time.
    In 1966, when Star Trek first beamed into millions of homes, 
Roddenberry's agenda was getting a TV show on the air so he could make some 
money -- a sensible and laudable goal.  Although the show limped through 
three seasons, receiving only marginal ratings, it delighted those of us 
who read science fiction and were starved for a visual presentation of our 
favorite genre.
    Looking back from the perspective of twenty-five years, I realize that 
the original recipe was pretty good science fiction.  Not always, of 
course; Classic Trek had its share of gobblers -- "Spock's Brain," "The 
Omega Glory."  Even so, there were scripts by Robert Bloch, Harlan Ellison, 
Theodore Sturgeon, David Gerrold, Dorothy Fontana -- people who understood 
that science fiction isn't about gadgets and technological gimcracks but 
about the effect the technological gimcracks have on people.  Go back and 
look at "Charley X," "City on the Edge of Forever," "Errands of Mercy."
    Yes, the special effect were laughable, the sets cheesy, and you had 
William Shatner chewing scenery.  But I'll take James T. Kirk kissing the 
girl, punching the bad guy, and violating the Prime Directive about twice a 
show over the bloodless automatons who now crew the Enterprise.
    The old show was passionate.  These were flawed individuals, people 
with whom we could identify because we possess the same failings.  How they 
met and defeated their personal demons was more gripping than the 
godlike-alien-of-the-week we get on Star Trek:  The Next Generation.  The 
dramatic problem with godlike aliens is that it takes a godlike alien to 
catch a godlike alien.
    But all things pass, including Classic Trek.  It faded away to that 
limbo where old television shows go to die, until it rose from the dead in 
the form of Star Trek conventions.
    And the conventions begat movies, and the movies begat the new series.  
Amen.  The dreadful effect of all the hype was that Roddenberry decided he 
could no longer just do a television show so he could make some money.  Now 
he had to speak to the ages because this was serious shit, this was 
philosophy.
    In the new improved twenty-third century there is no want, no money, no 
crime (if you should even get a naughty notion they'll come and make your 
mind right -- terrifying prospect).  And there are apparently no emotions.  
All of which combines to create a stultifying forty-seven minutes in front 
of your television.  The essence of drama is conflict, and there's none to 
be found in the new Star Trek.  But that's dramatic criticism and it 
doesn't address the question of whether Star Trek, old or new, has 
fundamentally affected society.
    Without question Star Trek's impact is incredibly diffuse.  Probably 
half the world's population would recognize the familiar "Beam me up, 
Scotty."  But that's chrome.  Essentially, Star Trek hasn't affected the 
ethics, morality, or philosophy of ours or any other society.
    Star Trek has always been a reflector of the country's attitudes rather 
than a shaper of those attitudes.  In the Sixties, we had the gung ho New 
Frontier democracy of napalm.  (Consider "The Apple":  Let's blow up the 
papier-mache tyrannosaurus with the horn on its head so the people who 
worshipped it can experience hunger and death.  I love this plan, Jim.)
    It was swashbuckling, far better entertainment than Star Trek:  The 
Next Generation, which reflects the stodgy, self-righteous Reagan-Bush New 
World Order.  Star Trek:  The Next Generation is kinder and gentler, 
probably more paternalistic, but basically just as coercive as the New 
Frontier activism of Classic Trek.  Is it important?  Does it matter?  No.  
As I said while on Star Trek:  The Next Generation, "We ain't eradicatin' 
world hunger here.  It's just a TV show."

                              END OF ARTICLE

There have been the odd ST:TNG episodes that have had that conflict, that 
drama, but they have been so few and far between.  When you look at ST:TNG 
as a whole, there hasn't been much to redeem it.  Possibly the only things, 
in my eyes, that have kept it interesting are Patrick Stewart and Brent 
Spiner's incredible acting skills and Jonathan Frakes' directing skills.  
Otherwise, I would have turned it off long ago.

Jeff Langston
LANGSTOJ@EGLIN.AF.MIL



Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv