It is difficult to explain the significance of Star Trek in our culture. In its original incarnation it was a hastily produced, low budget weekly show. But it captured something, likely by accident, and became iconic.*
In the decades since, Trek has waxed and waned. Many consider Star Trek Next Generation to be the ultimate expression of the optimism tempered by recognition of our fallibility that defines what Gene Roddenbury was going for. Everything else is at best mixed. Deep Space Nine and Voyager have their fans. The corpus of Trek movies has one or two very good ones and a bunch more that are just tired, expanded TV shows featuring tired, expanded cast members.
And then there is what is collectively known as "New Trek". As there is no longer any useful distinction between TV and movies in the streaming era this encompasses the Chris Pine reboot movies, Star Trek Picard, Star Trek Discovery, something stupid called Below Decks.....and Star Trek Strange New Worlds. All of these, ahem, enterprises bear the fingerprints of a certain Alex Kurtzman.
The "movies" have some entertainment value albeit with plenty of Kurtzmanian flaws we'll discuss presently. Discovery was awful. Picard awful for a couple seasons with a degree of redemption in the finale. And then there's Strange New Worlds.
The first season of "SNW" is on Youtube. As it is free I can certainly claim to have gotten my money's worth watching most of it. As an OG Star Trek fan going back to the 60's I'm rating it on three scales.
1. Wokeness. This is a ridiculous word that even its proponents are starting to shun. But Star Trek actually has always had a Progressive streak to it. The first episode of SNW had a few egregious moments, probably the sort of thing thrown in when you are trying to sell a pilot in Tinsel Town. The big 21st century war that is often alluded to in the Star Trek canon is blamed on MAGA. Also, the degree of "Mary Sue"- emphasizing the incredible abilities of women in all things - is pretty heavy. In fact Captain Pike and even Spock are rather Beta males.**
2. Originality. This entire series is derivative in a sense. Pike is Kirk's predecessor as captain of the Enterprise and appears in the original series when a previous rejected pilot episode featuring him, Spock and a first officer referred to as Number One was cut up and repurposed as flashbacks.
But I also rate things on how often they recycle old themes. Sure, there are only a limited number of story archetypes, but still...
We get not one but two "hiding in a nebula" episodes, oft done in Trek and honestly just your basic WWII submarine movie. There is effectively a holodeck episode where Stories Come to Life! Outside the Trek canon but instantly recognizable is an episode that is essentially "Aliens". We also get Landing Party in trouble. And Space Pirates. In fact there was exactly one episode that had the veneer of originality, one in which a remarkable child was taking on the responsibility of saving his planet. But I recognized it. It took the idea straight from an Ursula K. LeGuin story*** called "The ones who walk away from Omelas"
Kurtzman and his writers create nothing new. Is it not allowed or is it beyond their abilities?
3. Memorable characters. OK, I'm conflicted here. It makes sense to update some aspects of characters to reflect the half century since James Testosterone Kirk swaggered around ogling crew women in miniskirts. Any script that does not reflect modern sensibilities will not get green lit. That being said most of the female characters have very similar traits that make them interchangeable and therefor uninteresting. Capable. Lost their families tragically. Flawed but tough. Hiding something. Oddly while this applies to the communications cadet Uhuru, to the pilot, security chief and First Officer.....I can't recall any of them doing anything that struck me as very remarkable. I guess a batch of totally efficient people - like perhaps highly trained Starfleet crew - would not leave plot holes that give them disasters to cope with.
The character of Nurse Chapel is weird. Originally a stock character who got the job because she was Gene Roddenbery's wife she now has a spiffy unique uniform, the usual spunky attitude, and apparently the ability to just change people genetically. She does way more than the doctor. It would totally be in Trek canon for her to be an MD.
I did find the actual doctor interesting. Smaller role than McCoy but he plays it well. He has a daughter with a fatal illness that he is hiding and keeping alive surreptitiously.
The Chief engineer is blind. Gee, has that happened before? But he is a gruff and interesting character. Killed off in season One. Too bad.
So how to rate all this.... It had some interesting moments. Pretty sad when the first thing that occurs to me in summation is "It was not painful to watch". But it lacked a sense of wonder, of exploration. The entire plot arc involves Pike having foreknowledge of his eventual fate. How can he function as a Star Ship captain when he knows his actions have no consequences? Go ahead, do any damned thing, you won't have a scratch on you because you are destined to be in that reactor accident in a decade or so. No stakes, no actual agency. You are but a puppet of Alex Kurtzman and his hack writers.
Season two is now available on a streaming service that I have no intention of buying. Perhaps I'll check it out when they eventually Youtube it in an attempt to hype season three.
---------------------
* Iconic is not the same as Iconian. Oh, I do know my high level Trek cliches...
** Beta is not the same as Betazoid, although all male members of Counselor Troi's telepathic species do seem pretty "soy". A society where men and women can see each other's thoughts and emotions all the time.....that would be an interesting one to explore satirically.
*** I thought I was pretty clever to have nailed this one but when discussing this over a beer with one of my sons he came up with the name of the short story sans recourse to Google.
A hallmark of "New Trek" is the gigantic, dimly lit, thinly populated bridge. Can't have a vibrant, interesting, cheery world view. Nah. Conjure up dystopia and centuries of social distancing. What the hell does that say about their perceived audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment