By Michael Hinman Posted at December 7, 1999 - 6:00 AM GMTIn the United States, we recently got to see a halfway decent episode of
Star Trek: Voyager called "The Voyager Conspiracy." It was hardly one of my
favorite episodes, but since it is just the prelude to such a major event (as
"Sound of her Voice" was to Jadzia Dax's death on Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine), I cut it a little slack.
Seven of Nine, in looking to be more efficient in her information
gathering, was able to start downloading entire libraries of information into
her mind. However, one side effect she didn't realize was that it made her
paranoid, and she began speculating the most highly improbable.
She first turned against Captain Janeway, blaming her for stranding the
crew in the Alpha Quadrant. She then turned against Commander Chakotay,
claiming he was readying the Delta Quadrant for a Maquis/Cardassian invasion.
It was very easy for Seven of Nine to pin all the misfortunes of the
Voyager crew on just one or two people. And using what she thought was
empirical evidence, was able to back up her claims enough that even had Capt.
Janeway suspicious.of her First Officer.
Someone once said that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I'm sure
that the character of Fox Mulder from the X-Files would tell you, if asked,
that "truth is also in the eye of the beholder."
We all have different perspectives of what we believe to be truth. There
is no one on this planet who is immune to that.
If you came up to me, and said, "Michael, who is the greatest athlete of
all time?" I, without hesitation, would say, "Michael Jordan, of course."
Obviously, at this point, my answer is pure opinion. However, I start
backing it up with what I feel is valid empirical evidence.
"Michael Jordan equaled the great Wilt Chamberlain in the number of
scoring titles, and broke many other scoring records as well. Besides scoring
points, he was also considered to be one of the top defenders in the league,
a regular leader in the steals stats. He also transformed what we once knew
was the game of basketball, and turned sports in general into one of the
premiere entertainment venues in the world."
Of course, if someone went up to John Doe, and asked him who the world's
greatest athlete was, he could answer without hesitation, "Muhammad Ali." And
of course, he could go on and on about all the major accomplishments the
boxer had achieved both in and out of the, and the impact he made in the
world of sports.
With my evidence, I have a strong case that Jordan is the greatest
athlete of all time. However, Mr. Doe also has a strong, if not stronger,
case in support of Ali.
So, we ask a young lady named Jane to tell us which of the two is the
greatest of all time. Her answer? "Who cares? They both contributed to sports
and were influential in their own way. They are both equal."
Does that argument remind you of anything? It sure reminds me of a battle
that seems to have been brewing for the past 13 years. It all started with
Kirk vs. Picard. Then it went to the original Enterprise vs. the
Enterprise-D, and on and on and on, until it became Classic Trek vs. Modern
Trek.
There was no Star Trek: The Next Generation when I first fell in love
with Star Trek. I didn't get to see Picard and the crew go to space for the
first time until I was 11 years old. My love for Star Trek came from the
weekly adventures of Captain James T. Kirk, Science officer Spock, Dr.
Leonard McCoy, Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, Lt. Sulu, Ensign Chekov, and
communications officer Lt. Uhura.
By the time I was born, the original Star Trek had already become a huge
sensation in syndication .. something that was nearly unheard of before. So,
my entire life, I have been a fan of Star Trek. But I never considered myself
a Trekkie until October 1987, when I watched Encounter at Farpoint, and got
to experience a Star Trek the way Gene Roddenberry meant for it to be done
... following the path so well laid out by TNG's predecessor, Star Trek.
Now don't misunderstand me .. this is not to imply that TOS was not a key
part of the legacy. But, anyone will tell you from Gene Roddenberry on down
that there was just so much more they could have done if they had a bigger
budget and less brass riding their butts day in and day out.
Gene was said to have been proud of Star Trek: The Next Generation,
despite some of the changes that were made to the show after he handed over
many of the reins to executive producer Rick Berman, the man he hand-picked
to continue his legacy.
Rick Berman is hardly a stranger to the entertainment business. He had
been a producer for Paramount pictures for some time before he was approached
by Gene Roddenberry. Berman could have continued on a decent career path,
even if it never did cross with Star Trek. However, he knew that there was a
lot of potential that could still be tapped into in Star Trek, and he knew
the only way that the franchise was going to survive is if it started to
distance itself more and more from the original.
In late 1987, early 1988, if I were to ask you your biggest complaint you
had of Star Trek: The Next Generation, what would it be? I know what I used
to hear: "They are trying to copy Kirk and company. Why can't they do their
own thing."
That's exactly what Berman did with TNG beginning late in the first
season of the show. Of course, giving TNG that fresh blood meant saying
goodbye to some of the old guard. Sure, we missed people like D.C. Fontana
and Robert Justman, but even though they both shared the same name, people
didn't want to see a cheap copy of the series that made Star Trek what it is
today.
Star Trek: The Next Generation, in its seven years, did more than
continue the legacy of Star Trek .. it changed the entertainment industry.
How did Berman handle modern Trek?
Television networks were getting bigger and bigger in the late 1980s,
despite the potential growth the cable industry was on the verge of creating.
Rupert Murdock's News Corporation launched the "fourth network" called Fox
Television, but it was growing ever so slowly, trying to find it's niche in
an already heavy market.
Networks like NBC, ABC, and CBS provided on average about nine to ten
hours of programming to their local affiliates each day. That's a lot with
morning shows, soap operas, sitcoms, movies and such. However, it still left
more than 14 hours that the local affiliates had to fill. That's where
syndication came in.
The hottest property in syndication at the time (and even today) was
Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy. They were not linked to any networks, but
because they were cheap to produce, they had a healthy life in first-run
syndication. Also going strong were talk shows like Donahue and Oprah Winfrey
(whose shows at the time would rival Jerry Springer of today).
There were, of course, the many reruns like "Star Trek," "Three's
Company," "The Jefferson's," and others that would also make up the
syndication market. But doing a syndicated weekly drama .. especially one
that would cost more than $1 million per episode, was virtually unheard of.
Even the concept was laughed upon.
Star Trek: The Next Generation broke down those barriers and created a
monster that would eventually come back to haunt them. Not only did Paramount
do the impossible, they made it successful within two years! All of it with
the help of Gene Roddenberry .. and Rick Berman.
There is a common misperception that Gene was in control of the TNG
franchise right up to his untimely death in 1991, just a week before the
Spock crossover episode, "Unification," was to air in most markets. Gene
actually gave up many of his powers of executive producer over the course of
1988 and into the beginning of 1989. He was happy with Berman's work, and
although Berman's philosophy of where Trek should go differed from Gene's,
the point was that it was successful, it made a lot of money, and it looked
like the Trek legacy would remain intact.
However, the boom created by TNG's success in the syndicated market
hardly went unnoticed by other television production companies, especially
after new cable channels started to erode away viewership of the major
networks. Paramount wasn't blind to it either.
Berman realized that TNG would not last forever. He knew with the
imminent retirement of the TOS cast that they would eventually have to
graduate the Next Generation crew to the silver screen. Star Trek was still
very hot, and Berman knew there was still much more potential in the
franchise.
That was the beginning of the birth of Deep Space Nine. Doing another
Enterprise and another crew would not only interfere with the changing guard
in the movie franchise, but it would also overuse a concept that needed to be
retooled a little bit.
So, instead of having a captain and his crew exploring the stars, it was
decided to work on a series were space would come to the crew. Deep Space
Nine was that results of that concept and premiered in 1993 during the start
of TNG's sixth season.
Who know's if anyone could have realized how saturated the market really
had become. Science fiction adventures were popping up all over the place.
And having two Star Treks running concurrentely -- no matter how different
the concepts were -- wreaked havoc on the ratings of both the series.
In 1994, after spending a season and a half sharing the small scene with
its spinoff, Captain Picard and the crew of the NCC-1701-D said goodbye after
a highly successful run.
When TNG had first premiered, both William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy had
spoken out very publicly against the new series, and wanted to be no part of
it. In fact, the late DeForrest Kelley only appeared in the series premiere
as a favor to his good friend, Gene.
However, by 1991, Leonard Nimoy had made a huge guest appearance on the
show, and following his lead, Shatner agreed to resurrect his character for
the new cast's first movie, 1994's Star Trek: Generations.
Berman had turned the TNG show around from a copycat of TOS, to an
independent show worthy of a legacy all of its own. Now, Deep Space Nine
would have to work in a similar way.
Its ratings never enjoyed huge success as those of TNG, but DS9 was in a
much different market than what its predecessor was. Where TNG was only going
against reruns in most cases, DS9 had to compete against more than two dozen
first-run shows that were quickly crowding the market. It was never an easy
fight.
DS9 was obviously much different than any Trek before it. Not only did it
institute a major story arc beginning late in the second season, it was far
more political than anything we were used to in the aliens of the week in the
first two Treks.
In 1995, Berman helped create Voyager to continue that legacy, which
premiered on the United Paramount Network.
When DS9 signed off the air in 1999, Trek was suffering from
oversaturation, a weak network series in Voyager, and what had been a
disappointing box office appearance with "Star Trek Insurrection."
After all these years of history, this just seemed to be way too many
strikes against the Star Trek legacy .. and with many pundits calling the
phenomenon known as Star Trek dead, many fingers were being pointed --
directly at Rick Berman.
But is Berman really to blame? If so, what do we blame him for? And
should we forget everything good he has done for the franchise?
When I talk with people about Berman, many of them go on and on about how
he destroyed Star Trek. I stop them, and ask .. "What about The Next
Generation? That show is highly successful." And they look at me, and with a
matter-of-fact attitude, say, "Of course, but that was because of Gene
Roddenberry, not Rick Berman."
So I ask .. would you rather they stopped the Star Trek franchise with
the end of TNG and at Star Trek VI, and offer no more? TNG wasn't going to
continue forever .. especially with roles popping up for actors like Patrick
Stewart and Brent Spiner. They weren't going to stay onboard the Enterprise
forever.
What would be your opinion if right now, there was never a DS9 .. never a
Voyager .. never a Generations .. never a First Contact ... never an
Insurrection? Of course, your opinions would be mixed considering a lot of
the negativity shown toward those properties, but don't you think you would
be out picketing for more Trek?
Without the influence of Berman, you're talking about no Trek movies in
eight years. No Trek television in five years. No Trek at all.
The fact is, they were here, and they are here. And thanks to the hard
work of people like Rick Berman, the franchise will continue well into the
future.
Anyone who thinks that Paramount continues Star Trek for the sake of
their fans is sadly mistaken. I'm sure the people at Paramount are all great
people individually, but the bean counters run things there, and they only
like to continue things that are in the black.
Right now, despite the low ratings of shows like Voyager, and despite the
lesser-than-expected turnout for Insurrection, Star Trek is making Paramount
money .. a lot of money. You can take all the money Titanic made for
Paramount, and multiply it by three, and that is about what all the different
merchandising, licensing, show production of Star Trek generates for
Paramount each and every year. You don't really think the money Viacom has to
buy CBS came from their ownership of MTV, do you?
Star Trek may not be the best it could be, and maybe there are a few
heads that could roll here and there. But the point is, Star Trek is going to
survive, and it is going to continue. Berman has helped to produce more than
300 hours of entertainment for us that we may not have been able to
experience if he wasn't involved.
We all like different things. Is Star Trek dying? Or is it propsering? I
don't know what could be considered the truth, but that truth is in the eyes
of the beholder. Michael Hinman is is the webmaster of Sci-Fi news site SyFy World.
|